Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) ... in the meantime, I will continue posting some new pictures supporting my original statement of Dallas Police involvement in the shooting. Since we are already on the Knoll, where we have now identified Black Dog Man as a DPD officer standing behind the corner of the retaining wall, and discovered another uniformed accomplice near the Stemmons Freeway sign (see above...), let's see what the process can extract from previously neglected pictures showing the same area: in all probability, we should be able to detect the presence of these men, if they are real, in other pictures and films. We will look first at Bond 4, taken in the aftermath of the shooting, because it is simply, well, striking, as you will see... The result on the right is one of those "impossible" images: note not only the facial details, but also the pinkish colour on the man's lips. This is, and I think Duke will concur, unexplainable via conventional optical enhancement.... Edited November 25, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) ...to address immediatly the "optical illusion" argument, I am posting below an extreme close up of the image, so that you can decide for yourself whether the image is genuine, or just a trick of the eye. Remember optical illusions vanish upon enlargement, whereas here you will notice that additional information appears... See for yourself: try it full screen, I can assure you it is quite the experience...... B) Edited November 25, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 ...this is a captioned version of same, which might be easier to visualize for some people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 ...still another version of same image, this time showing his position relative to the extremity of the wall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) ...I'll conclude this first series by posting a composite showing what the process has been able to reveal concerning Black Dog Man: he is not only, as already established by the HSCA, "an individual in dark clothing", but much more precisely a man wearing a Dallas Police uniform, stationed behind the wall during the shooting Thus, so far we have found corroborating photographic evidence of 2 unaccounted for DPD officers behind the wall. Evidently, they are not engaged in shooting at the motorcade, but their mere presence, unknown for 50 years, raise some questions, don't you think?... This is a significant discovery, I think, since these law enforcement officers are unaccounted for in the official record of the assassination. This confirms also that the process, objectively, does bring out critical new optical enhancement to known images, such as BDM. So the claim that it can also bring out new, untill-now not found images does at least deserve a fair hearing, in my humble opinion... I thought it better to establish this point first, before moving to more controversial areas... Edited November 26, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Phelps Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I do think the "Black Dog Man" may perhaps be a composite effect from two persons at the corner area of the concrete retaining wall near the sidewalk and bench. There is mention of two people sitting on that bench near there, and they are called dark skinned. I do think one of those was the shooter and the other standing along side to lookout and act as cover for the gun. So, were they Corsican dark or Cuban dark skinned persons? Or one of each? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 ...now, since I did not prepare a fully organized presentation for this, I will let you choose where you want to go next: *we can finish exploring the retaining wall area (yes, there's still plenty to see...) *or we can go straight to some of the suspected shooting posts: the fence, the TSBD sniper's nest, or the Daltex building, and see if the process is able to extract new information, up to now unavailable, to confirm or deny such or such hypothesis (I suggest we keep the analysis relating to the nature of JFK's wounds for the end, if that's OK)... Now if (or when) we decide to explore the infamous fence area, looking for that long-elusive Knoll shooter, I would appreciate that someone notify Jack White, so that he can participate in the discussion. I think that what I will post here might verify, at last and for good, his initial findings. The image I have found, while much clearer in details, is I now believe just an improvement of his original discovery. So unless his BadgeMan is in a totally different location than mine (I have not been able to locate precisely Jack's BM location: it varies from the different sources I have consulted...) I think he should get his due, after having been much maligned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 ... I have a question for Duke, if that's OK: - I understand that you don't understand how the process works. But what is your opinion about the enhancement ratio produced by the process? -I have posted the unprocessed enlargement from Belzner, side to side with 2 processed versions of the same image: do you notice, or not, a marked improvement in clarity and detail in the processed versions, as compared to the original? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hocking Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 ... The process, as I described, is a very simple iterative method based on data interpolation, which caracterizes itself by an unusually high enhancement value of data stored on photographic and film record. It can be done, theorically, with any image software you own... The "added value" is in the process, not the tools... I can post here a step by step "how-to-do-it" guide, or send it to you privately... Hi Christian, I don't completely understand the description of your method, but I am quite interested in examining the process if you are willing to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed LeDoux Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Hello Christian, First let me congratulate this mans efforts. It seems to show more information about the image than we previously had. But, I have a question. I note the close ups have a certain 'noise' associated with them. The noise causes the retaining wall to be irregular and not sharp with clearly defined edges. Would you agree? Where as a close up without enhancement would still have some loss of sharpness it would be far less and show an 'edge'. What I am getting to is the image is of a sharp well defined edge of a wall yet we see a bumpy un-smooth edge when enhanced. This gives me pause when examining the image of the face. How do I, or you, know the details on the image of the face are not directly because of these same type bumps and noise. Can you show me the edge of the wall without it being noisy/bumpy (because I know in reality it is smooth and flat). Thanks. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) I do think the "Black Dog Man" may perhaps be a composite effect from two persons at the corner area of the concrete retaining wall near the sidewalk and bench. There is mention of two people sitting on that bench near there, and they are called dark skinned. I do think one of those was the shooter and the other standing along side to lookout and act as cover for the gun. So, were they Corsican dark or Cuban dark skinned persons? Or one of each? ..Hi Jim... No, I don't think Black Dog Man is a composite of the elusive dark skinned couple: the bench was somewhere else farther down the wall (they may be visible in the picture, by the way...). I know this is one explanation for BDM given on the McAdams site, but as you can see, the images speak for themselves: the uniform is clearly identifiable, and the man look definitely Caucasian, what with the rosy lips and all... *I don't think either he is directly engaged in the shooting (so he would not be a dark Corsican, either...):he is much too exposed to view, so the only rationale for stationing an accomplice (or several, as I will show) here would be that they would be useful to the plot. How? By deflecting attention from the Knoll as a possible source for the shots, by their mere presence. I have always been intrigued by the testimony of the moto driver along JFK's car: when he heard the shots, he said "...I immeditaely looked towards the Knoll, but I did not see anything out of the ordinary..." Now from my line of work,I pay much attention to what people say, and to how they say it: seeing "nothing out of the ordinary" is not the same as seeing "nothing". Remember, we see with our brain, not our eyes, meaning that we "filter out"first, basically, what we see: Would the presence of a fellow policeman looking down the motorcade from the knoll look suspicious to another law enforcement officer? Very probably not... Would the presence of such a fellow officer convince eventual observers that the area around him must be secure, and therefore eliminate the hypothesis of shots fired from there, directing their attention somewhere? Very probably yes... My point is that the use of Dallas Police uniforms made the assassins and their accomplices litterally unvisible to most (but fortunately, not all, as we will see...) witnesses, in the immdiate aftershock of the shooting. Now you may have a point: obviously, those people can be seen moving around during the shooting, and it is my opinion that some pictures and films shows more than one people close together near the wall corner. So some images (not what I have presented here so far) may bear proof of this. I personnally believe that at least 3 DPD officers (real or bogus, that's not the point here...) can be seen in the area close to the wall corner (I have identified 2 of them, the other is still pending).There is at least another one further down the wall, closer to the pergola. So no, no Corsican assassin nor dark skinned couple,I believe, can explain the images I am posting here: they just show a young Caucasian male, presumably the same one since he is located at the same spot behind the wall, wearing a dark blue uniform, which looks very much compatible with those of the Dallas Police that day. The fact that this same coherent image (with several major coherence points to crosscheck) is corroborated from 2 different sources (different photographer's point of view, slightly different times during the shooting) must also be taken into consideration for sound analysis of this material... Edited November 26, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) ... The process, as I described, is a very simple iterative method based on data interpolation, which caracterizes itself by an unusually high enhancement value of data stored on photographic and film record. It can be done, theorically, with any image software you own... The "added value" is in the process, not the tools... I can post here a step by step "how-to-do-it" guide, or send it to you privately... Hi Christian, I don't completely understand the description of your method, but I am quite interested in examining the process if you are willing to share. ...Hi Richard... ...no problem, you can see that I am myself not really on the technical side of things, and I understand that what I am saying is quite unconentional and should require much more pedagogic skills that I can muster... No worry, I will post a very simple do-it-yourself guide here for those of you interested. I think I should say this also, so that there is no misunderstanding: anyone producing new images using this process can claim copyright to what they discover: I will only request that they indicate the anteriority of my research, that's all... This is for Ian, re the technical side of it: I have some friends who believe this method is marketable (could be turned into a sellable product), and that some serious money can be made out of it. This is not at all my field of expertise: so if you want to look into it, that's fine with me... I believe your training guy was on the right track, and the material you have at your disposal could be a major improvement for the process: in all probablity, we should get much better results using more powerful material... Edited November 26, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) Hello Christian, First let me congratulate this mans efforts. It seems to show more information about the image than we previously had. But, I have a question. I note the close ups have a certain 'noise' associated with them. The noise causes the retaining wall to be irregular and not sharp with clearly defined edges. Would you agree? Where as a close up without enhancement would still have some loss of sharpness it would be far less and show an 'edge'. What I am getting to is the image is of a sharp well defined edge of a wall yet we see a bumpy un-smooth edge when enhanced. This gives me pause when examining the image of the face. How do I, or you, know the details on the image of the face are not directly because of these same type bumps and noise. Can you show me the edge of the wall without it being noisy/bumpy (because I know in reality it is smooth and flat). Thanks. Ed ...Hi Ed... I will try to answer your questions, with my limited technical background, as well as I can. Obiously, I will speak in layman language, so specialits may correct me on the right terms or phraseology to use. "I note the close ups have a certain 'noise' associated with them. The noise causes the retaining wall to be irregular and not sharp with clearly defined edges. Would you agree?" Definitely: this is plain to see... "Where as a close up without enhancement would still have some loss of sharpness it would be far less and show an 'edge'." That's right: that is why I posted initially a composite showing side to side an unprocessed enlargement and 2 processed versions, just to show the difference in data interpretation between the 2 approach (classic optical enlargement, and data refining). So the classic optical approach will preserve the smooth outline of the wall, just because it only will enlarge what you are already seing with your eyes, but the data refining approach will try it differently: it basically seek to extract all possible data related to what was recorded (just like squeezing a sponge to release the liquid it contains, instead of just looking at the sponge...). Minute variations of light reflection on smooth surfaces, like a wall for instance, may thus become visible directly or indirectly, generating some sort of ambient noise. It is also my opinion that this is another illustration of the quantic nature of reality: as you probably know, we cannot know the location AND spin of an electron at the same time: it has to be one or the other, can't be both. Similarly, we can't measure anything without acting on it, which actually means that we only measure approximations of reality, but never in any case the objective expression of reality (if such a thing exists, but that's another matter....) So I am not really surprised that a gain in data organization on the one side would be compensated by additional entropy on the other side: you already have this phenomenon, true much less marked, when you work with classic enlargements, if you think of it... The real question will be: do those 2 simultaneous "reshuffling" of data equalize / cancel each other? Shall we reject the newly found, apparently undisputable image that appears, because it generates additional noise on the contour of the wall? That's where the process comes handy: as I explained, the process is about generating N derivations of the same initial set of data, then aggregating them together in one single transparency. So it is not a matter of one image, that could arguably and very reasonably, on the sake of statistics alone, be challenged. Freak occurences do occur. Optical illusions are a fact. But if we take the specific exemple of the Bond 4 picture, with its incredible level of fine details, the result I present here is an aggregation of 346 derivations (thus producing n°347, which I have posted): from memory, I will say that the image started to become really visible (though no way as clear as it is now) around version n°50. So if we transpose this to a criminal case, we would have, out of a group of 346 witnesses: *50 witnesses who saw a wall, and nothing else of much value *296 witnesses who saw somebody in dark uniform beyond the wall, and in most cases with striking details like clothing or facial features (no moustache was reported, for instance... ). Now those witnesses focusing on the man behind the wall would, as it is verified time and time again in trial testimonies,lose a lot of other details pertaining to the event, like movements of other people on the scene, noises,time and duration of events, or even elements of the surroundings. But in no case this known phenomenon will discredit their testimonies: able prosecutors know on the contrary that it is the addition of sometimes dissembling or contradictory testimonies that allow for a valid reconstruction of a crime by (just like the process is doing with pixel data content) focussing on the resilient / recurring information. So I believe that when we have 85% of the data which concurs (and if I process more, this ratio will go up), when this data is produced by a process that is actually based on statistical resilience (meaning it focus only on information that has a a propensity for showing up stubbornly in the data, regardless of the way you analyze it), I think we are on to something really solid... So the noise / entropy that the process generates is, in my opinion, no different that the noise / entropy generated and accepted in other forms of research. "What I am getting to is the image is of a sharp well defined edge of a wall yet we see a bumpy un-smooth edge when enhanced. This gives me pause when examining the image of the face. How do I, or you, know the details on the image of the face are not directly because of these same type bumps and noise." ..because: -the image is just too definite: you can enlarge it as much as you want (that's why I posted a HD extreme close up) and you will still find additional information (you can easily verify this by checking the man's eyes, as impossible as this claim may sound...). We are, very obviously not dealing here with any type of "Jesus-in-the-clouds" or "Virgin-Mary-in-a-loaf-of-bread" type of Rorschach illusion. We are seeing very, very large magnifications, with minute details that can be checked, and which would not pass such scrutinity level if they were unsupported. -the process is iterative: which means that each file consist, not of one or 2 images, but of several hundreds (and in some cases, more than a thousand...)derivations of the original picture. So you request, I can send you a complete file so that you can document for yourself how the final image appear, by mere and slow iteration, from one derivation to the next... "Can you show me the edge of the wall without it being noisy/bumpy (because I know in reality it is smooth and flat)." I think it would be better if you verify this point by yourself, and share with us here: it would give you the opportunity to test the process your own way. I'll give you short instructions to do so below: anything you need to try it, let me know: ...if you agregate version 347 that I posted with the unprocessed original, you will have an intermediate version including both data set in one setting: this would "equalize", if that's the word, the data content of this newly created version by setting each pixel value at an average point between version 347 and the original. So you will "get back" some of the wall smoothness (since it is present in the original), but of course on the other hand lose some of the newly extracted details of the man's face from version 347. Now what you could do after that (and that is basically what the process is all about, fellows...)is of course sharpen / focus (or any type of settings you might deem interesting) this new version, and then agregate it to the original again : by doing so, you will create still another valid template of the data set, wich will contains unique data caracteristics (this is crucial: each template thus created is unique is in own right, meaning sytematic interpolation of templates generates in turn new template bearing specific new information). This is, by the way, one of the crucial recommendation in the "how-to-guide" to this: always and regularly reinject into the data base the original material to make sure you are not embarking on some wildgoose chase because because of some fancy shadows, bad computer resolution, or substance abuse... Ed, I will post below some exemples from the Bond 4 files, to illustrate the slow, gradual refining of the process. I realize that some results posted here look quite spectacular and, therefore and that's fine, are a bit unsettling: the fact is that the process is relatively slow, and the results presented here have evolved over significant period of time: you are seing here the end results only, which may look "too good to be true". So I will show different instances of the processing of Bond 4, for the record... Edited November 27, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 ...Hi Duke... I remember we discussed this a few years ago...I agree totally with your statement that "you can't get more detail out of a pixel than was recorded in the first place ...". Actually, that is why I stopped any work with the process for 3 years, after I discovered the first image: I was convinced that it was some kind of high level optical trickery. But facts are stubborn: -the nemesis of optical illusions is enlargement: the level of details (at times, distinct facial features) visible even after major increment of enlargement (6, 8,10 and at times more...) goes far beyond what we should expect from a classic optical illusion, which evaporates at much lower scrutinity -the process is reproducible: very early in my research, not aware of the fallibility of computers, i lost a complete file documenting Dallas Police presence in the DalTex Building.I had to rebuild it from scratch, with even better results. I have also worked on different versions of the same images, getting the same results -it is not a matter of one image, found in one picture: it is a matter of several dozens of images, taken from films (Zapruder, Nix, Hughes) and pictures (Moorman, Belzner, Bond, Willis,Altgens, etc) showing very suspicious, undocumented activity by Dallas Police elements during the shooting. Counting only those mentionned above, that makes 8 different but concurring sources providing identical information. That's a lot... So, while I still agree with you that there is no way to extract any information that has not been previously recorded, my reasoning is now "What do we really know about the way visual data is recorded on photographic support?...". My guess is now that what we can extract from the record is much more dependant on the tools at our disposal than previously thought. I think Wilson convincingly showed that, although I do not agree with most of his findings... It is as you say: we discussed this several years ago. Or rather, I'd asked you about the process and you talked about the underlying thesis and the reproducible results ... but never described the process that is so "reproducible." You say it is, but don't tell us how to do it. That's what I asked you then, that's what I asked you this time. If you don't want to tell us how to reproduce the process and merely want to tout the results you've obtained and the concept it's based on, stop complaining about how nobody seems to be interested in the information you're trying to "relay" without relaying it. If it's reproducible, tell us exactly how to reproduce it. Otherwise, you're merely asking us to buy into a theory that's "so far beyond what is conventionally expected from optical enhancement" that all you can do is tell us why we should think it's valid without ever proving that it is. The proof is in the pudding known as "reproduction." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 (edited) ...here is a composite illustrating the evolution of an image through different stages of the process, using Bond 4 as a reference. Each version is an agregate of the previously generated versions: so it can be expressed as saying that version 3 contains 3 layers of information one on top of the others, while version 271 contains 90 times that amount of data (271 layers): you don't need to be a math genius (which I am not...) to realize that this is quite a significant increment, and that the claim that this method could actually extract up-to-now unseen information is not unfounded... Edited November 26, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now