All Activity

...I've posted a detoured version... Again, the image is BIG...

If the US attacked Cuba and the Soviets responded it would be US starting the war not the Soviets. Remember what Kennedy said about the missiles placed by the Soviets in Cuba: an attack by Cuba using them would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union on the US. Same principle, Gareth Porter is an estimable journalist. Glad to see you reading him. Cliff. But he wasn't advising the government. In any case, exact parity, if that's what you mean, isn't necessary for starting a nuclear war to be madness. Kennedy was able to get something like 80votes in the Senate to pass the limited nuclear test ban treaty that Fall as a first step to the disarmamnet he sought because people were realizing the MADness.

..Well, at least you see an image, and it doesn't look like Lee Harvey Oswald, does it? Actually, the large black eyes are dark glasses. I am not sure whether your post is serious or a joke: I will answer to all serious questions and queries about the results or methodology used here. I don't have much time for funny banter, on the other hand. No offense meant, if that's not the case. If, however, you are interested in the UAP phenomenon, like I am, I will post in the last segment of this "Dallas Decoding" presentation, dedicated to "The Science Behind the Results", results obtained on two images: - one from the Nasa Clementine Mission to the Moon - one from from the Kumburgaz video If you are interested in this phenomenon for real, you know what I am talking about. For casual readers: - The Clementine photo has been the subject of much speculation because it is very heavily blurred, leading some researchers to believe that the blurring was intentional, intended to hide something on the moon surface that the NASA did not want the general public to know about. I will present results showing what NASA tried to hide. - The Kumburgaz video is notorious for its quality and duration (and resilience: videos were filmed during several consecutive years at the same spot) and the fact that it was authenticated by the Turkish Government. It shows long, good quality shots of what appear to be the cockpit, or some bay area, of an unknown airship, with "people" visibly moving around: I will present results showing the face of the occupants of this unknown ship. I will present those results here just as an example of the application of the process to material not related to the JFKA, to show that this is a methodology (though a very simple one) that works operationally, regardless of the context. If there is a specific forum here on this subject, though, let me know; I'd be glad to contribute.

Do you know why Lyndon Johnson did not want Robert Kennedy to be *his* Vice President in 1964? Because he did not want to put anyone on the Democratic ticket who would murder him. The reason LBJ would say something like that is LBJ knows that Robert Kennedy knows that LBJ murdered JFK. And the other reason for that comment is LBJ knows that he and Sam Rayburn strong armed/bullied JFK in a hostile takeover of the Vice Presidential spot for LBJ on the 1960 Democratic ticket. And the reason WHY LBJ made a hostile takeover of the Vice Presidency was because relations with the Kennedys were so rancid and toxic that LBJ knew that if JFK were elected president, the Kennedys would immediately move to have LBJ overthrown as the Senate Democratic Majority Leader - that gig was over. The context of the conversation below is LBJ telling his longtime pal and former aide Texas Governor John Connally why it would be completely unacceptable for LBJ to have RFK on the Democratic ticket. LBJ to John Connally (7/23/64) on why he would not have RFK as his Vice President on the 1964 Democratic ticket: "I'm not going to let them put somebody in bed with me that'll murder me." [Michael Beschloss, Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964 (1997), p. 470] [Lawrence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty (2004), p. 18] … Also in [Laurent Guyenot, The Unspoken Kennedy Truth, pp. 7-8] Lyndon Johnson speaking with John Connally on the phone (7/23/64) about how he is not going to take Robert Kennedy as a VP on the Demo ticket: QUOTE I think I’ll have that conversation…. I’ll call you afterwards and we probably will have to make a deep pitch to governors … and … leaders… and see if they’ll stay with the President. Then I just think I have to say that if they don’t, I’m not going to let them put somebody [Robert Kennedy] in bed with me that’ll murder me. Then I just can’t be president. Then that’s exactly what he [Robert Kennedy] wants. Because then with his having enough support to be Vice President and I got out, he’d have it more than anybody else has. … But I don’t think my self-respect could suffer a defeat at the convention and then take the presidency. Do you? UNQUOTE [Michael Beschloss, Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964 (1997), p. 470]

Joe, The Generals and CIA were the perpetrators of the assassination. They designed it to looked like Cuba and Russia were behind it. The General didn't report that the Cubans/Russian were behind the assassination because they are not an investigative body. J. Edgar Hoover did indeed discover the evidence that the Cubans/Russians were behind the assassination. The faked evidence, that is. But he didn't know it was faked. At least not until much later.

Oh I don't know, Roger. Maybe whatever it was that got the whole police force out to arrest Oswald... which they did at Texas Theater. I didn't say it was valid evidence. Say what? LBJ was hoping for a death bed confession from Oswald. Why would he have hoped for that if he knew Oswald was innocent? Of course LBJ and Hoover thought Oswald was guilty. That IS the easy choice! I'll let J. Edgar Hoover tell you. Here is what he said to LBJ over the phone regarding the evidence implicating Cuba: "This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story there is of this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We're not able to prove that fact, but the information was that he was there on the 18th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they've changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28th. Now the Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban embassy... and we're going to confront her with the original informant, who saw the money pass, so he says, and we're also going to put the lie detector test on him." Oswald reportedly had been paid $6500 for the hit in the Cuban Consulate. And was paling around with Silvia Duran and some Cuban officials while in Mexico City. (This according Elena Garro, June Cobb, and Gilberto Alvarado.) And then there was the evidence that Oswald met with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy. And the letter Oswald supposedly sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC saying that he had conducted his business with Comrade Kostin (i.e. Kostikov).

To me, this looks like a Grey alien, with large black eyes.

Trump's daughter-in-law, (Lara Trump) the newly-minted co-chair of the Republican National Committee, bizarrely claiming the GOP has election security lawsuits pending in "81 states." - Alina Habba - "If he's not in Manhattan, which is a completely blue state, where they only pulled blue state members of the jury on purpose, well, that's a different game." The Trump people seem to be geographically challenged. Steve Thomas

RO: But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions. Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier. </q> Khrushchev would start a war he couldn't win over Cuba? Nonsense. According to Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance the USSR didn't reach nuclear parity until 1965. Sandy, it wasn't Harriman who contacted AF1 to inform LBJ the lone gunmen was in custody -- it was McGeorge Bundy.

I've stated this several times over the years. If Russia and/or Cuba were really behind the JFKA our military and intelligence people and LBJ himself would have known this. Okay...if so, what would you think their response would be or should have been in a retaliatory sense? The action of killing ( or even organizing his killing...even through a Manchurian Candidate ) our sitting President is about as egregious an action one could imagine one adversarial nation perpetrating against another... debatably an act of war! LeMay and other top military people had to be restrained from promoting or even considering a "first strike" action against the Soviets during the Cold War. I think those Dr. Strangelove mentality characters would have wanted a justification event to occur to promote their most aggressive agenda. What better justification event could there be than the killing of our president? So, the fact that this super retaliatory scenario was not even reported in any well documented way by the Generals known for holding that sentiment suggest ( to me anyways ) that they knew Russian and Cuba were not the perpetrators of the JFKA. And even if any first strike talk was struck down despite Russia and Cuba being involved and we knew it...don't you think we would still have hammered the Soviets and Cuba in some other massive ways to retaliate for their ultimate act of war action against us? Yes, for the next 5 decades we kept Cuba in a hugely enforced international trade blockade lockdown economically but no more than before the JFKA. Our undermining actions against the Soviets were no more aggressive than before the JFKA. I cannot believe that we didn't know whether the Soviets and Cuba were behind the JFKA. I sense we knew they weren't.

..Yep. Actually, the image is BIG. You have to get a correct scale of how a person would look like through that window. I realize that I have been working fro more than 20 years with these images, and which is not he case for casual viewers. I will post a detoured version asap... There it is. The star is positioned just above the man's head, giving you a sense of scale:

It would be easier if you could indicate what part is being worked on, it´s hard to figure out the size and place of the detail

Was looking at a different structure

Did some enhancing myself, there is indeed "something" going on there, but it's hard to draw a conclusion. Shadow tones are consistent imo

...Glad to see the links are working... Will wait to see if it lasts.... Re your question: I would not think so, because we can see apparently undisturbed light distribution on the area which would be covered by the arm. The man, to me, appears to be merely standing and looking down, with his arms to his sides. He may still be holding the weapon seen in Hughes frame n°2, but that would be an extrapolation... Let me add this, which I think is important: the presence of this assassin, 20/30 seconds after the last shot, confirms what we saw in the segment about "The Assassins' team Behind the Fence", where a man in DPD uniform can be seen, standing on a car trunk, behind the shooter. Both men shows absolutely no sign of worry about being apprehended, identified, or caught on film. The man behind the fence, actually, was meant to be seen, giving the impression that the area was under police control and thus secure. Again, that is in direct contradiction to the classic scenario of some disgruntled party pulling some Mission: Impossible stunt to kill the President, and getting away with it because of "skeletons in the closet" that they used to blackmail the Federal Government into the Lone Nut conclusion. This is not what we see here: we see the Sniper's Nest shooter, 20/30 seconds after shooting at the President, cool as ice, looking casually down the street to check the aftermath of the shooting. So my analysis here is that those men knew, somehow, that they had absolutely nothing to worry about...

It makes no sense whatsoever for the CIA to do anything at all in creating a false flag operation, knowing that LBJ was opposed to it. Sorry, but your theory falls apart right there. You need to adjust it to account for what the CIA plotters did. But we know that both the JCS and the CIA were willing to take the risk of attacking Cuba. We know that because that's precisely what they did! With the Bay of Pigs! My theory has these exact same actors assassinating Kennedy. They still wanted to attack Cuba! According to the Burris Memorandum, Allen Dulles told Kennedy that December 1963 would be the ideal time for America to win the war. You can read about it here: https://prospect.org/world/u.s.-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963/ Harriman said he had consulted with the top Sovietologists and it was a consensus opinion that the Soviets were not involved, and he reported that to LBJ while he was still aboard Air Force One flying back to Washington. Now why would Harriman do such a thing if he weren't trying to steer LBJ away from the commie angle? BTW, Harriman lied... he had not consulted the Sovietologists, other than himself. (Recall that he had been Ambassador to the Soviet Union.) Precisely! The same faction that perpetrated the assassination! The same faction that proved with the Bay of Pigs that they were willing to risk war with Russia as a result of attacking Cuba!

In the first enhacement of Powell, is the figure raising his left arm? Almost touching his chin with his left hand.

...Maybe they could, but as the result I am trying to post here establishes without a doubt, this is not the explanation: the apparent discrepancy is caused by the removal of the image of a man in dark blue uniform standing in the window about 10/30 seconds after the last shot. You will find the same type of "discrepancy", and the same explanation, for the ruler's position in the back-of-the-head autopsy picture: it makes no sense in the original picture, measuring nothing, but makes sense when the image is cleaned up of the forgery, revealing the wound that is being measured... I posted those images, but I must admit I have lost count of which ones were visible, and when. Any specific results you might be interested in, I can send you by e mail...

Ok, so I have reposted above the images originally posted. I used the link you proposed, and I chose the "direct link" option. Crossing my fingers now...

What evidence implicating Oswald are you talking about, Sandy? They murdered Oswald about 45 hours after the JFKA precisely because they knew they could not prove he did it in court. They couldn't let him talk to a lawyer. And of course they knew he didn't do it. Johnson chose to go with the lone nut story because he wanted no part in blaming Cuba or Russia, not because it was somehow the easy choice. He knew the problems with the lone nut story up front; he didn't discover them later. His job was to paper over them. The same question goes for your claim that there was evidence implicating Cubs and Russia.

Hi.. Thks, I'll try it...

..Yep, I think I will resort to that if I can't solve that link problem. Do you know if there is a limit for the number of people having access to it? Let me know... Because, for understandable reasons, the field of photo analysis in the JFKA is today considered somewhat irrelevant, I wanted to show in the thread, by displaying some results, that this research is very different from has been done in the past. It is about applying 21st Century tools and method while approaching the record not as photographic sets, but as batch of data. All previous analysis of the record were based on enhancing specific details of an image. Thus, someone would "see" something in an image, and then redraw and/or color it to "revel" his interpretation to the viewer. This is not at all what is done here: full pictures or frames are processed (or large segments), applying known methods of problem solving used to reduce uncertainty/unknowns in finite data sets. As it happens, uncertainty/unknowns in pixel data sets are expressed as blur, i.e. uncertainty about the exact boundaries between groups of pixels of different value. So the process is simply applying well-established tools of data processing to the specific sub group of pixel. When I conceptualized this (1998), and looked for any scientific application (I was quite sure I had merely rediscover something long-known of specialists in the field), I was quite surprised I could not find anything. But a few years later I did... I will conclude this "Decoding Dallas" presentation with a segment about "The Science Behind the Results", where I will show to those interested that the process I propose is not "Voodoo Science" and the results presented not an exercise in pareidolia. On the contrary... Well, let me try to solve that lik problem now. Thanks to all members who are trying to help....

SL: The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets. It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one. RO: A great deal of effort? This is the CIA with virtually unlimited resources and no one effectively watching what they did. Plots were hatched, adjusted and abandoned all the time. You don't know about most of them. But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions. Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier. SL: To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted. RO: It was an operation backed by the military, but not primarily run by them. But your history is a bit off. By late '63 intelligence was saying the Soviets had caught up with the US. Kennedy had gotten Congress to pass the limited nuclear test ban treaty with them. The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction was taking hold. Only a fool, or Curtis Lemay, would thing a nuclear war with the Soviets that neither side could win was a good idea. Certainly not Lyndon Johnson. To me, it's axiomatic that Johnson would not risk blowing up the presidency he had lusted after for so long in a nuclear war with the Soviets. You can argue he gave the war machine their war in Vietnam that Kennedy was going to end as a sop, a substitute, if you want. I think he was going to do that anyway. He told McNamara he never agreed with Kennedy's withdrawal plan but kept his mouth shut. I said early on Johnson made clear to the others he would not go after Cuba. But I don't know when he did that except it was likely before the murder was done. In any case, Johnson squelched the Cuba idea right after becoming president and pursuit of Oswald the lone nut began. The anti Cuban zealots had no recourse. SL: Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory). RO: No, the coverup had nothing to do with something Harriman said. It was a *necessary* part of the killers' plan to get away with the murder, and so implemented by them! SL: Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence. RO: The coverup was complicated by the fact that the killers' story deviated so clearly from how the murder was done. Which is why the others needed Johnson as president to deal with the problems caused by the autopsy, films, the investigation, etc. SL: But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.) RO: No the Cuban invasion was the preferred option of only one faction. It was a crazy idea and easily dealt with.

Whatever informaton came from Mexico, it needed to be tripple checked. Like the mystery man capture, first reported to be 10/1 later turned out to be captured on 10/2 when Oswald was on his way home. Even without a cover-up, a possible mole, talks of a shady money deal, pouches with transcripts or tapes, parties, an elderly woman with bad eyesight handling the observation camera,... it sure was a messy bit.. Deliberate?

Can anyone explain why Lisa Howard went so far to oppose Robert F. Kennedy in the 1964 election for United States senator from New York as to join “Democrats for Keating” to support RFK’s Republican opponent Kenneth Keating who was a hawk on Cuba? Her public support for Keating cost Howard her job with ABC and set back her career so it was obviously something she felt strongly about. This would appear to be inconsistent with seeking genuine rapprochement with Cuba. Was RFK an opponent of an opening to Cuba? https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/29/archives/democrats-form-a-keating-group-120-liberals-say-kennedy-is-using.html