Base Technique

[John Dolva]

In response to requests

To produce such backgrounds as these I find the following useful

Work with bitmaps

Do, check , redo, check, redo etc in a logical systematic way so as not to compound errors.

Use colourless (black) background. Save continuously. Always have a reserve of that wichh you are satisfied with before planning major changes.

Divide the work into segments to bejoined later.

Minimise rotation.

Some features that the software should have are

Layering

Transparency

Erase with transparency and soft edge features.

Fine rotation, say to at least 0.05 degrees

As much RAM as possible. I find that with one gig I can work on about 400 layers and 170 mb files fairly well. Combined with tweaking of swapfile and a membooster/defragger and generally conserving resources. More would be better.

A networked system with tasks allotted and shared across say three systems would help.

As an example of what one may expect, here is a sequence of a film.

As one is layering multiple images those things that are different on one image will tend to 'wash out' or be subtracted, while those things that are thew same on a number of images will tend to add to each other. So here for example one can now see tyre tracks and footsteps in the lawn where previously they were faint or invisible.

Also the white area now becomes more defined as the true location of it is separated otut from previously blurred individual images.

Of interest here is the patch of trampled lawn around the white 'marker'.

Could this have been the establishment of a spotters mark?

[John Dolva]

Here is the same sequence placed on a contemprory photo c/o Lee.

Also Kennedy's orientation at the moment of the headshot as confirmed by Muchmore, Moorman and others. He is actually slightly more turned towards Jackie a fraction of a second later when the headshot occurs.

[John Dolva]

As a further aid here is an image of the motorcade.(these are all techniques developed by myself without reference to work by any others. I'm sharing them here in the hope that it might help others further examine the photographic evidence available in this and other cases)

As you can see at the top (1 & 2) look the same.

However they are not. Number two has been very slightly distorted using Richard Rosenmans 'Lens Distortion Corrector'.

If one takes a copy of 1 and applies a 50 % transparecy to it (3) and a copy of 2 and inverts its color values (4) and center them on top of each other then the DIFFERENCE between them jump out (5).

In image six the undistorted image one is placed on an inverted copy of itself and here the color cancellation results in a blank gray as there is no DIFFERENCE.

.....

Apart from use in detecting alterations, this is also useful in aligning the frames in the films.

The closer you get to 'getting it right', the more this cancellation occurs.

Edited August 18, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

I apply this 'difference analysis', as I call it for want of a better word, to the whole case as well. If one takes the truth or a whole 'capture' or broad snapshot of the days clustered around nov22, as a base 'image' and superimposes the current state of knowledge or the 'accepted wisdom' on it then some of the big differences that stand out for me are: the lack of knowledge of or interest in the south side of the plaza. the lack of knowledge about and interest in certain individuals. the gradual herding away from certain parts of the evidence with all sort of hoax allegations. the slow leak of documentation that steers the investigation in particular directions. the incredible resistance to and difficulty of exploring any other avenues.

The appearance given is one of uncovering the truth, another way of looking at it is that the truth is systematically being blotted out. I've spoken before about Angletons orchids. Of all the numerous hints, disclosures and 'confessions' accompanying this case I think it, while veiled in allegory is perhaps the most important. I don't think Angleton was personally involved, but I think he had a pretty good idea who was. And to the best of his ability he tried to show the way.

[John Dolva]

Obviously the lack of interest in such things as the basic evidence of the case leads one to speculate on the motives of investigators. Not all of course but those who are in the unfortunate (for the case) position to drive the course of enquiry.

By now it's a multimillion dollar industry. Should the case actually be solved (I lean towards the view that it largely has) then so much and so many will merely be curios on the dustgathering shelves of history.

Some see it no doubt as an opportunity to push pro antileftwing just as some see it as an opportunity to do the opposite. Others take the opportunity to capitalise on various other aspects.

What voice then the earnest interest?? In my experience now (of only a few short months) not a lot.

There is a distinct pattern of cronyism appearing. This is the very reason that I reject any invitation, overt or covert to participate in any sort of favouritism. Ultimately it's a contract with deception. I know that there won't be much reasoned response to this post (like most of my other posts) so this is for those who are not members here. The community at large. Don't be under the illusion that this is a pursuit for truth. Far from it. It masquerades as such in order to maintain itself.

Don't think I don't realise the position I place myself in by adopting this tone of script. It certainly won't win me too many votes. Well, you know something? I don't care (obviously). A system or industry that purports to do one thing but does another slathered in the produce of mutual cerebral onanism is NOT what will get this case solved. A robust independent group of independent investigators willing and capable of slugging it out without fear or favour with all comers will.

This is more like the armchair version, full of considerations for sensibilities.

Given that I shortly won't have too many more opportunities to post to this forum, I say this to those who are genuinely interested in seeing the murderers of the president identified. Look to those first few minutes, it's all there. Refuse steadfastly to be diverted from it. Look at Dallas as it was. Look at the core individuals and contrast it to where they are in the 'accepted wisdoms' of today. Look at the core evidence, ignore any diversions, contrast it to the 'wisdoms' of today.

Look at the tone of the 1963 south, immerse yourself in it, ignore diversions.

It's all there. Covered in smoke for sure. But like the sniper in jungle warfare, don't look for the

similarities, look at the fleeting odd difference. Once you spot one keep looking at it and suddenly the structure behind the camouflage appears.

A hint for those who have managed to read this far without shaking with indignation or frozen with cold disdain : when a bullet passes through a substance, it displaces that substance in predictable ways. where it displaces that substance, that substance is displaced into other surrounding substance. In other words. the substance becomes denser in the immediate vicinity of the bullet.

Now, you must remember that the bullet travels very quickly, but in a largely predictable way.

When this substance is air, one gets an elongated cone shape of denser air following the bullet. As the bullet is always slowing down this cone slowly tapers as well. This cone doesn't disappear instantly. Light is bent by travelling from a medium of one density into another. A mist of fine droplets of reddish color against a background of green (remember inverse from above) is a medium with particular characteristics. This mist moves into the dissipating air cone lens and interacts. Light passes through it and is bent in particular ways. This light then passes through a second lens of glass, strikes a medium which reacts and the result is a film. This bullet trail proves the genuineness of the film but given the unbelievable nonsense surrounding the authenticity of the film any reference to it as evidence is either diverted by controversy, ridicule or just straight out stonewalling.

Those in possession of the original frames are in possession of key evidence. Please see that it is protected. Gary?

Scotty, anyone, beam me up, please

[John Dolva]

The full text of CE 1152

"DL 100-10461

RPQ:gmf

#my comments in italics between these # signs, where text is underlined it's because in the text someone has done so with a pen. This is obviously a report or summary of a number of reports#

Confidential informant, Dallas T-7, advised Special Agent CHARLES T. BROWN, JR., that LEE H. OSWALD rented Post Office Box 6225 located at the Terminal Annex Post Office Station, Dallas, Texas, on November 1,1963. In his application for rental of this box OSWALD indicated the name of his firm as, "Fair Play for Cuba Committee," #part of Harry's job as informant was to monitor mail of communists, I think that at least as early as November one, though given the average 2 week gap in reports being attended to possibly at least by November 14, Oswalds Mail Box was under surveillance.# and another firm indicated as, "American Civil Liberties Union." He indicated this type of business as "Non-Profit." According to informant, Postal records indicated OSWALD rented this box for the period November 1 through December 31, 1963 and paid $3.00 rental in cash for the box on November 1, 1963.

#the missed beat here and its descriptive dialogue indicate here an attempt to make at least two separate reports appear as one, the second lot of information coming as a followup as the significance is realised, in other words a knowledge of Oswald as early as (at least) Nov 1, and a summary presentation here to indicate it was later, because why would they not just say it was Harry? His part in things was no secret? or was it?#

#now we go on to a later period.#

Informant advised that on December 5, 1963, he examined Post office Box 6225 at which time he ascertained the only item contained in the box was the December 6, 1963 issue of "Time" Magazine. #Henry Luce's mag(mockingbird). Oswalds receipt of Worker and Militant is significant, Time is not?# The Magazine was adressed to LEE H. OSWALD, Box 62254, Dallas, Texas. #presumably it's a one year subscription. This is significant as it therefore was not redirected, but after the date of Nov 1, Oswald sent a change of address to Time, giving his new mailing address. There were definitely ways that both the CIA and FBI could have known of and monitored Oswalds whereabouts and his mail for at least as long as one year previous to the assassination.# The mailing strip on the magazine indicated OSWALD's subscription expires in December,1963. #note the tense used here, expires, not would expire or expired. The report referred to here or paraphrased was written prior to Dec 6 at least, definitely before the last issue of that year, probably in the week after receipt of Dec 6 issue.# Informant stated that since the afternoon of November 22, 1963, a close watch has been maintained on this box. #kinda like after the horse has bolted?# Informant stated that a continued close watch has been maintained and will continue to be maintained for any persons attempting to obtain mail from this box. # this is absurd as Harry is the person from whom Marina now receives her mail from after it is examined by the FBI, CIA. Oswald is dead so presumably Hidell is too, quite apart from the fact that there is NO mention of any Hidell in the earlier report of the Box being applied for.?#

Informant stated that it is his understanding that OSWALD had a key to Post Office Box 6225 in his pocket at the time of his arrest on November 22, 1963. Informant stated that he was at the Homicide Detail Room, Dallas Police Department, on November 22, 1963, and observed the key in possession of an unidentified Homicide Detail Detective. The detective told informant that the key had been found on OSWALD at the time of OSWALD's arrest.

#now he (the author of this hodgepodge) goes on to yet another report#

Informant stated that he questioned numerous Postal employees after November 22, 1963, regarding any mail packages, magazines or other material received through Box 6225 by OSWALD and none were able to recall any material of any kind being placed in the box with the exception of one employee whose name informant was unable to recall. # Harry elsewhere went to great length to describe his phenomenal memory and investigative techniques, but he cannot remember this person who worked for him. Well, as a result this person cannot be questioned. I suggest he can't remember because this person never existed, or rather this person is Harry, who had already been monitoring OSWALD's box since BEFORE the assassination. Through him (Harry), the FBI, CIA, Dulles, Helms, Roosevelt, Walker et al. were already monitoring Oswald. I guess one could call Harry the gopher, or perhaps a classic name for a gopher : the butler.# This employee told informant he thought on one occasion he had placed some type of Russian newspaper in the box but the employee was unable to specifically recall placing the item in the box #amnesia must be infectious in the Postal Inspectors department# and he was not was not able to recall a date on which it had been done, #had it been done or had it not??? whatever, the impression that it had is now there, (backyard photos?)# if it actually had been done. #ahh, now I see, clear as mud.# Informant stated that upon examining the box on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, it was determined there was dust in the bottom of the box indicating no mail had been received through the box. # wow, an entire paragraph to say, er...nothing. Elementary, my dear Holmes.#

Informant concluded by saying that on November 24, 1963, Oswald admitted renting P. O. Box 6225 #having now achieved the purpose of this summary, there is a desire to hasten it's conclusion and Post Office now becomes P.O.# and P.O. box 2915 in Dallas, Texas. He also admitted to informant #this is the most telling evidence that "Informant Dallas T-7" was indeed Harry D. Holmes because this is what happened in the last interview of Oswald, prolonged by Harry with these questions way past Oswalds sheduled transfer till Jack Ruby was downstairs and someone signalling, 'get on with it' by banging on the door of the interview room. Shortly after, the interview winds up and Oswald takes his last few steps.# that he rented P.O. Box 30061 in New Oreleans, Louisiana. #where Oswald was being monitored by "New Orleans Informant T-4"# Oswald did not make any admissions to informant concerning his use of this box #which box?# nor did he admit receiving a gun at any time through any of the aforementioned Post Office Boxes. #hey, why use a short word when a diminutive would suffice?# He denied receiving any mail addressed to A. HIDELL through any of the Post Office boxes #that's better# and denied that anyone else had ever received any mail through these boxes. #superb!# He admitted to informant that on one or two occasions he may have given his Post Office Box key to Box 2915 to his wife for her to obtain the mail from the box and bring it to him."

Thats it. No signatures. A summary of multiple reports by Harry to the FBI. Talk about redaction. Or innuendo.

The overall feel here is to bolster the Communist angle while blotting out dates of reports in order to cover up the foreknowledge. Foreknowledge that I suggest could include the Backyard photos.

Edited August 20, 2005 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

John Dolva wrote:

As a further aid here is an image of the motorcade.(these are all techniques developed by myself without reference to work by any others. I'm sharing them here in the hope that it might help others further examine the photographic evidence available in this and other cases)

As you can see at the top (1 & 2) look the same.

However they are not. Number two has been very slightly distorted using Richard Rosenmans 'Lens Distortion Corrector'.

Hey John,

I see some of Richard's plugins work in DeBabelizer, great way of batching 100+ 'sequenced' frames, yes... shame his stuff isn't ported for the Mac

If one takes a copy of 1 and applies a 50 % transparecy to it (3) and a copy of 2 and inverts its color values (4) and center them on top of each other then the DIFFERENCE between them jump out (5).

how'd you get that grey screen, again? I think your right 'in theory', unfortuantely we're back to the same old problem analyzing and futzing around with 'non-lineage determined' imagery [photos-or-film frames]

In image six the undistorted image one is placed on an inverted copy of itself and here the color cancellation results in a blank gray as there is no DIFFERENCE.

.....

Apart from use in detecting alterations,

now THAT is news! can you point me to where any of Richards plugins have been used in detecting "alterations" - I'd like to ask him a few questions...

this is also useful in aligning the frames in the films.

just like MPI, aligned those Z-frames for our viewing pleasure. Your aware; the multitude of problems with THEIR (MPI) version of the Zapruder film, correct? I've never spoken to the folks at MPI, in particular, the guy doing the 2D app. work.

The closer you get to 'getting it right', the more this cancellation occurs.

there-in lies the problem: "getting it right". I would think, if one is going to analyze, make comparisons with, come to conclusions, it would be nice if we knew ""where"" the Zframes analyzed came from. Any old place on the internet?

Edited August 20, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Mark Knight]

John, I see great value in the work you've done. And I believe that the Harry Holmes info is on the right track as well...I believe that ol' Harry is trying to paint a certain picture, while omitting certain facts and dates in order to make the picture fit the frame [double meaning intended].

And I agree that the economics of the LN vs. conspiracy debate is a big factor in allowing it to go on for the past forty-some years...for if the truth is told in indisputable terms, the works of an entire industry will, as you pointed out, begin gathering dust.

I say, let the dust-gathering begin! Whether it's the left, the right, or the center involved in the assassination, history deserves the truth to be revealed...let the chips fall where they may.

Your work with the existing photographic evidence has been quite enlightening. IMHO, it tends to suppost the idea that JFK and Connally were struck by separate bullets, and it adds credence to the argument that the headshot seen in Z-313 came from the left front...both of which would be strong evidence of conspiracy.

Keep up the good work, John...I believe you're on the right track.

[John Dolva]

As a further aid here is an image of the motorcade.(these are all techniques developed by myself without reference to work by any others. I'm sharing them here in the hope that it might help others further examine the photographic evidence available in this and other cases)

As you can see at the top (1 & 2) look the same.

However they are not. Number two has been very slightly distorted using Richard Rosenmans 'Lens Distortion Corrector'.

If one takes a copy of 1 and applies a 50 % transparecy to it (3) and a copy of 2 and inverts its color values (4) and center them on top of each other then the DIFFERENCE between them jump out (5).

In image six the undistorted image one is placed on an inverted copy of itself and here the color cancellation results in a blank gray as there is no DIFFERENCE.

.....

Apart from use in detecting alterations, this is also useful in aligning the frames in the films.

The closer you get to 'getting it right', the more this cancellation occurs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the images this refers to are above

.......

Mark, hopefully we can all one day toast to a job well done, whatever the outcome. Looking at Harry started after I saw possibility of a left shot, which surprised me greatly. So turning around and looking away from the accepted wisdom, there he was. Lots of curious things and very few answers. In fact the more I stated to pursue him and try to see what he was up to the stranger it becomes. David, there is no mention of using the lens distorter in anything except in me taking a photo (any photo will do) distorting it and comparing the two using a specific technique of comparison as described. Purely illustrative for demonstration. Overall this technique as described applies to any, not any particular images.

[John Dolva]

As mentioned I am now in a period of not having opportunity to post much. Hopefully in a few weeks that'll change but it might not. I keep scouring the net for photos of a particular period, namely DPD internal around the homicide office after Oswalds arrest, if anyone knows of a good source, pls post.

Is the cross on the street of present day Dallas regarded as the correct location of Kennedy's head at the moment of headshot?

[John Dolva]

As mentioned I am now in a period of not having opportunity to post much. Hopefully in a few weeks that'll change but it might not. I keep scouring the net for photos of a particular period, namely DPD internal around the homicide office after Oswalds arrest, if anyone knows of a good source, pls post.

Is the cross on the street of present day Dallas regarded as the correct location of Kennedy's head at the moment of headshot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am surprised to find that when I line up the two yellow stripes, the lamp post and kerb on a photo from the days of the assassination, the x marked on the street shown on contemporary photos (here marked in green) is different from the one I get from projecting Kennedy's head onto the street. The location in the vertical is not so exact as in the horizontal. But a difference here of a few meters appears to me to be significant. As I find it hard to believe that I would have discovered something new here, I'm interested in finding out what controversy exists around this issue for those who have choosen to use the disputed zfilm as a base.

[Nic Martin]

The X on the street currently is about 2 feet off of where the actual headshot occured.

However, if you dare to run out in traffic or have someone do it for you, you can get really good pictures around the Plaza from the current X..

[Mark Knight]

John, I would suggest that the "X" in the street is a location derived from something like the WC's erroneous data, as explained by Tom Purvis' catch of the discrepancies between the WC's survey data and the actual survey done.

Remember what Tom said about the Z-208/Z-210 descrepancy in the WC Report? If that discrepancy is extrapolated forward, it might explain the incorrect positioning of the "X" in the street.

Or it might not...but that may be a plausible explanation.

[David G. Healy]

As mentioned I am now in a period of not having opportunity to post much. Hopefully in a few weeks that'll change but it might not. I keep scouring the net for photos of a particular period, namely DPD internal around the homicide office after Oswalds arrest, if anyone knows of a good source, pls post.

Is the cross on the street of present day Dallas regarded as the correct location of Kennedy's head at the moment of headshot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am surprised to find that when I line up the two yellow stripes, the lamp post and kerb on a photo from the days of the assassination, the x marked on the street shown on contemporary photos (here marked in green) is different from the one I get from projecting Kennedy's head onto the street. The location in the vertical is not so exact as in the horizontal. But a difference here of a few meters appears to me to be significant. As I find it hard to believe that I would have discovered something new here, I'm interested in finding out what controversy exists around this issue for those who have choosen to use the disputed zfilm as a base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

Jack White might give you a little info on the 'Yellow-curb-Stripes' at times they seem to grow and move around a bit...

David Healy

Edited August 22, 2005 by David G. Healy