David Josephs

Sir, your replies do not deal with the situation... If the man in Bond 4 was the man on the steps and your process shows there is a policeman there before and after the shots.... yet in reality it was this other man, the final output is not reliable.... which is why I ask you to enhance and make visual the features of the man's face sittin gon the steps in Bond4... this is somehting we KNOW to exist, so instead of CREATING something that was not there to begin with... your process can show us how it reveals the facial features that are most definitley in the data set, as you claim. The "hughes" image you posted tells us very little... you claim you see something... outline it please... lighter the background... and as John asks... show us the starting point with the same refernce star so it's in the same place on both images... Can you do that without the soapbox opera you provide with each reply? Finally, using a reference point like the star and then stating it is NOT a refernece point is very bad form Franz... Of course I can size your images to match the original... then again... I've tried repeatedly and cannot get the scale to work... Please post the original starting image and the EXACT SAME SCALED IMAGE after the process... of the Bond 4 enhancement... or any other before/after you'd liek to provide yet ON THE SAME SCALE - exactly please thanks DJ

Franz, you obviously had the time to address some of the posts here... just not the one most compelling to your process and authenticity. Please explain how the image you CREATED within Bond 4, well after whoever was there in Betzner and Willis left, and come to the conclusion we are seeing anything of value? Here is Bond 4... 2 of 3 men are sitting on the steps, the third ran up the steps... I took your little area of enlargement/enhancement and played with it and was able to fairly easily make a comparison to your 273rd iteration. Your process destroys the detail ABOVE the fenceline and simple takes what is there and tweaks it until you like it... The insert I CREATED does not reveal anything NEW, but simply ALTERS the pixels... I can see how the enlargment product you use is helpful in creating a better ALTERED ORIGINAL so I tell you waht... PROVE IT WORKS... show us the expression of the man on the higher step... he obviously has a mouth, nose, ears, eyes, etc... Show us how you can make this person LOOK like a person as opposed to making tricks of light and shadow APPEAR to be a person.... Thank you Franz... and please... just the short answer - I do not need a lecture on how I think, or how human beings behave... stick to the process and show us how it works on images we KNOW are there.... Peace DJ

Looks like his right hand is already in his pocket by the time he reaches and passes this other man.... yet it did look like something was in that hand as well... So was he our 6th floor shooter?

Here you are Franz... see the man turning and up the steps he went? Why again are you enhancing Bond4 to discover the BDM as a shooter well AFTER the actual BDM image left? thanks DJ please click gif to run...

Okay Franz... I went back into the thread to find your Bond 4 work... and when scaled so your STAR is the same size we see the scaling and images are not even close..... Now something that does not even DAWN on us here... BOND 4 was taken well AFTER the shots..... The THING you are enhancing is probably the man who ran up the steps after the shots were fired and is on or near the bench that's there

uh, not so much Franz... While I appreciate the imagery... ADDING WATER changes the original pixels to such an extent that they are REPLACED by other REAL pixels that can now bleed thru and be seen This is NOT the process you are describing... no matter how many interations you go thru you will NEVER be able to "remove" a layer of clothing on a photo and depict what is REALLY there... but only what the original pixels SUGGEST is there and how the math makes up the difference... you've CREATED a new image Franz... not enhanced the old one. Tell you what then Franz... since you believe your process is similiar to the wet Tshirt example... Use your process to tell us what is holding the bag up... what is Montgomery holding in his had that extends into the bag and keeps it upright... thanks A scoped Johnson 30.06? --Tommy NOW we're talking... Wesley's of course, right? To be honest, I got a note for Gary Mack about an oral record left by Montgomery... he literally says that he looked inside and saw a "venetian blind" which was what helped hold up the bag... Sorry, but I don't buy that.... This is simply not an accurate description of what is courring here Franz... you are mixing real life and the frame by frame existence of photos... you can interpolate from now until forever, you are NOT going to create an image from a first photo/frame of what exists (dry Tshirt) in a second photo AFTER the water is poured ... you may be able to APPROXIMATE it from the data in the original... but it will NOT be the 2nd image that is actually photogrpahed or filmed... Same thing with your Badgeman work.... while your argument supporting this is interesting and filled with imagery and supposition about things like BadgeMan being a REAL PERSON based on what the HSCA says or what White/Mack say... the SUGGESTION of the image of a man created by the foliage and whatever else IS THERE... so by default if a mathematical process is going to use the pixels offered to "SMOOTH THEM OUT" by creating a vector based enlargement FIRST, THEN running the math against this newly created and ARTIFICALLY ENHANCED image... it will offer things in the image that are CREATED by the guessing of the math and NOT from uncoving anything NEW in the original data.... While we KNOw the image itslef is not pixelated, turning the pixels into vectors ADDS AND REMOVES data so the enlargment is smoother... but once the "enlargement process" is completed you have a whole new image... Can you please post STEP ONE of your process whereby you take a piece of Bond 4 and ENLARGE IT using the Kneson product and create a vector based gif or png file.... again, like fractals, the image does not exist until the math does its work.... it was NOT ALWAYS THERE Franz... it was never there to begin with So here is where we stand... show us the original and the enlargement that you put into the PROCESS ENGINE.... we'll deal with the math/filter/interpolation process next.... thanks... DJ

uh, not so much Franz... While I appreciate the imagery... ADDING WATER changes the original pixels to such an extent that they are REPLACED by other REAL pixels that can now bleed thru and be seen This is NOT the process you are describing... no matter how many interations you go thru you will NEVER be able to "remove" a layer of clothing on a photo and depict what is REALLY there... but only what the original pixels SUGGEST is there and how the math makes up the difference... you've CREATED a new image Franz... not enhanced the old one. Tell you what then Franz... since you believe your process is similiar to the wet Tshirt example... Use your process to tell us what is holding the bag up... what is Montgomery holding in his had that extends into the bag and keeps it upright... thanks

We GET IT Franz… again see Fractals-math creating images. Here is your enlargement method: ”Kneson Unlimited Enlargement method-An interpolation technology that transforms images into vectors allowing outstanding image enlargement clarity. There is OBVIOUSLY more info/data/programming in the Vector than the bitmapped image and as enlargening it adds the info to retain the original look… but this is an ARTIFICIAL creation of NEW DATA…. http://mchobe04.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/bitmap-and-vector/ http://vectormagic.com/home/comparisons Until you provide even a test file of the LAYERS you are discussing, there is little more to discuss." Post some of them right here please, I’m not the only one interested in this… show us 5 KEY layers and the result of the math on those layers Thanks btw - djosephs@calottery.com is where you can send the larger files... I will look for the Bond 4 images you posted... and compare again...

I thank you for the long winded rationalization of your techniques and results but this changes very little with regards to the FINITE amount of data in whatever original you are using and the results of interpolations... RANDOMLY GENERATED ITERATIONS ok Since, as you say, you are correlating the BDM image WITH these iterations... and these iterations are BASED on the BDM image (btw which one do you use? size/type/source thanks) we would EXPECT to see enhancements in areas there was information... Since you are basically creating a 271 or 350 layer photoshop files and allowing each layer to bleed thru each other... the final product is a COMBINATION of good info and VERY VERY BAD INFO generated thru mathematics.... You understand FRACTALS? the results of mathematical equations whereby an image is CREATED from the relationships defined in the math... Same thing here Sir... Until you provide even a test file of the LAYERS you are discussing, there is little more to discuss. What is it you think we are seeing in that last post of the enhanced Bond 4? I've done a fade from one to the other.... Please narrate thanks DJ

Nice to know I've been onto something for a while now... Never did think his head ever moved forward.... and now what's worse, people like Altgens who say they SAW the forward motion are even more suspect.... Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

Morning Lee... Didn't LHO rent the room as O.H.LEE so that Mrs Johnson would know him as Mr. Lee? Mr. BALL. When is the first time you ever saw Lee Oswald? Mrs. ROBERTS. The day he came in and rented the room--the 14th of October. Mr. BALL. Had you ever heard of the man before? Mrs. ROBERTS. No, and he didn't register as Oswald---he registered as O. H. Lee. Mr. BALL. Did he sign his name? Mrs. ROBERTS. O. H. Lee. Mr. BALL. Did he sign his own name that way ? Mrs. ROBERTS. O. H. Lee---that's what he was registered as Allegedly, David. That's what the evidence suggests. It's in Fritz's notes that Oswald alleged it was the housekeeper that made the error. Ruth and Marina claimed to have called Beckley only to be told there was no one there by the name Lee Harvey Oswald. Gladys Johnson was also interviewed by a researcher, whose name escapes me right now, where she recounted the same series of events - that the police and FBI were at 1026 North Beckley not long after the Tippit murder, between 1:30-2:00pm. Which lends a lot more credence to the fact that Will Fritz knew about the Beckley address long before he claims Oswald actually told him about it. Long before he'd even started interrogating him. So the question is how? Not sure why but a gut feeling tells me that Ruby somehow gets that info to Fritz thru others... Maybe Ruby thru Tippit to the DPD? Could be why Tippit had to go. Makes more sense that the Mafia would get rid of Tippit if he was involved and Oswald had to remain the PATSY... DJ DJ I think the Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene comes into play, David. If the DPD and/or the FBI were at 1026 North Beckley anywhere near Johnson's times of 1:30pm-2:00pm then the wallet could have possibly pushed them there. An interesting thought yet I have yet to see an item of ID with OSWALD & BECKLEY both on it... In CE1963 p.557 we have a timeline where Oswald is at Beckley from 10/14 - 11/22 except other than arriving there there is not a single entry for him ever going BACK to that address... Have you seen anything with a Beckley address on it? DJ

Morning Lee... Didn't LHO rent the room as O.H.LEE so that Mrs Johnson would know him as Mr. Lee? Mr. BALL. When is the first time you ever saw Lee Oswald? Mrs. ROBERTS. The day he came in and rented the room--the 14th of October. Mr. BALL. Had you ever heard of the man before? Mrs. ROBERTS. No, and he didn't register as Oswald---he registered as O. H. Lee. Mr. BALL. Did he sign his name? Mrs. ROBERTS. O. H. Lee. Mr. BALL. Did he sign his own name that way ? Mrs. ROBERTS. O. H. Lee---that's what he was registered as Allegedly, David. That's what the evidence suggests. It's in Fritz's notes that Oswald alleged it was the housekeeper that made the error. Ruth and Marina claimed to have called Beckley only to be told there was no one there by the name Lee Harvey Oswald. Gladys Johnson was also interviewed by a researcher, whose name escapes me right now, where she recounted the same series of events - that the police and FBI were at 1026 North Beckley not long after the Tippit murder, between 1:30-2:00pm. Which lends a lot more credence to the fact that Will Fritz knew about the Beckley address long before he claims Oswald actually told him about it. Long before he'd even started interrogating him. So the question is how? Not sure why but a gut feeling tells me that Ruby somehow gets that info to Fritz thru others... Maybe Ruby thru Tippit to the DPD? Could be why Tippit had to go. Makes more sense that the Mafia would get rid of Tippit if he was involved and Oswald had to remain the PATSY... DJ DJ

I'll have something to say about this at some point tomorrow, David. I want to read up on a few things first. Thanks Lee... would be very interested in what you have to say on the subject. DJ

This is a bit of a surprise to me... no comments at all? The section as written was completely UNNECESSARY to the discussion of the interrogation... Adding that he was asking BECAUSE he wanted to determine where the photo was taken is a dead giveaway. He ends page 8 with "...where he was living." yet goes on to add the part about the photo knowing full well that it had not been found by then. Does anyone know who the stenogragher was who helped Fritz with this and whether it was Fritz who added this part...? Was he that smart to leave a clue in his report days later? And why add MORE detail... thanks DJ

Morning Lee... Didn't LHO rent the room as O.H.LEE so that Mrs Johnson would know him as Mr. Lee? Mr. BALL. When is the first time you ever saw Lee Oswald? Mrs. ROBERTS. The day he came in and rented the room--the 14th of October. Mr. BALL. Had you ever heard of the man before? Mrs. ROBERTS. No, and he didn't register as Oswald---he registered as O. H. Lee. Mr. BALL. Did he sign his name? Mrs. ROBERTS. O. H. Lee. Mr. BALL. Did he sign his own name that way ? Mrs. ROBERTS. O. H. Lee---that's what he was registered as

ALL THAT cause you cant find the $10? Really Dave? Cause REA can't say HERE is the $21.22 and the $19.95 sent to Seaport? Dave... This guy - Alvarado, knows this story bout Oswald... give him a call.. 555.CIA.ASET peace out DJ

Sir... You are aware that by adding layers with a variety of interpolated "effects" on what can only be a finite amount of ORIGINAL DATA will, with enough play, create any effect desired... Reading thru the thread I still have not seen a simple list of the layers used and the effects employed... but I have seen you make "doesn't it make sense" arguments in support of the conclusions... Anyone who has worked with layers understands what you are doing and how you have basically incorporated manufactured data into the existing image... Yes, the data is there and you create more with the process... but it is still "created" and not - hidden info not seen in the, what? prints? images you are using? sorry sir, but there is no EXTRA INFO in the files.... only processing effects enhancing ogiginal images to a state that MAY or MAY NOT be in what was the original... When we are using digitized originals, we STILL will be enhancing info not altogether there... I applaud the effort and the result, it still takes work... but "line enhancement filters" from photoshop superimposed over 5-10 other layered effects doth not make a new view of an ORIGINAL image... Peace DJ

In his notes of Oswald's interrogation, Fritz had his notes typed up and then it SEEMS as if he edited them with a stenographer who added text as needed.. The BIG DEAL over Fritz asking Oswald about the BY photos on Saturday, 4 hours BEFORE they were found, has always bothered me since the standard reply has been that this was after the fact and not necessarily remembered correctly... I found this page of notes from Fritz' report in the Dallas Archives and had someone finally transcribe the shorthand... it is virtually verbatim of the final reports typed text... " ...when the picture was made of him holding the rifle...." Box 1: Folder 15 1. Interrogation, by an unknown author. Typed rough draft with handwritten corrections pertaining to the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, (Original), date unknown. 12 pages 00000412 01 15 001 0412-001.gif 0412-002.gif 0412-003.gif 0412-004.gif 0412-005.gif 0412-006.gif 0412-007.gif 0412-008.gif 0412-009.gif 0412-010.gif 0412-011.gif 0412-012.gif To me this proves that Fritz had the opportunity to think about what he was writing and make additions... he decides to add the fact that he asked Oswald about where he lived SPECIFICALLY to find out where the photo(s) were made... at the 12:35 interrogation. Strange thing though is that the next page of the rough draft INCLUDES the shorthand written passage? I STILL think this whole little "episode" is very strange indeed. DJ

Mr Von Pein... you've succeeded in diverting the attention of yet another thread... let's try not being tautological for once okay? Forget whether Oswald has this gun or not... there are some basic steps in the process that are MISSING... The "CASH" marked by the "X" is related to the $19.95 balance plus COD charges... I have a few "DO YOU THINKS" as well Do you think that Seaport would not record the reciept of the COD deposit? This invoice is dated March 13... the $10 deposit was sent "in january"? When did Seaport get the coupon and deposit... and why is there not a single shred of evidence supporting that answer? Do you think that Seaport would not record the deposit of that $10 in some sort of record or DO YOU THINK they just kept their money under a mattress? Do YOU THINK that Railway would want to collect their money as well? Don't they get the $1.27 COD charge? So Railway would have records of the $1.27 transaction, as well as the forwading of the money to Seaport... DO YOU THINK there would be records of these transactions? In what did Oswald mail the $10 cash deposit? What day did Seaport get the order? Should be in the records if any of the FBI cared to look... So please DVP... stick to the questions... you want to start a post on what you think is OBVIOUS... have at it... I just want to know why the records for the 2nd most important gun purchase are not available. DJ Where is your proof the rifle and pistol arrived at the P.O. (coming from Chicago and Los Angeles, respectively) "on the same day"? There's no proof of that. (Not that it really matters, of course.) Plus: Why couldn't Oswald have picked up his guns on a Saturday, instead of a workday? He didn't work Saturdays at Jaggars, did he? And weren't the post offices open at least a half-day on Saturdays in Dallas in 1963? (They are here in Indiana.) Another basic, common-sense point needs to be made here---- Who the heck orders something through the mail, and then doesn't even bother to go and pick it up? And please don't chime in with "Where's the proof Oswald ordered ANY guns through the mail?" -- because that's totally absurd. OF COURSE Oswald ordered his guns via mail-order. Hence, he would have been expecting them to arrive at the place he had them sent--his P.O. Box. Hence, he would have picked the damn things up. Can anyone possibly fight the basic logic of my last paragraph? And, IMO, the rifle and pistol were not ordered a month apart. Oswald merely filled out the pistol coupon on January 27th, but it's almost a certainty that he didn't mail it until March 12th...the same day he mailed in his rifle coupon to Klein's. How can we know this? Because BOTH Seaport & Klein's internal paperwork show stamped dates of "March 13, 1963" on the respective invoices for those purchases. (Which, of course, would also mean, if I'm correct, that Oswald's revolver coupon made it to L.A. in just one day -- which is possible, since he very likely used Air Mail to mail it too, like he did his Klein's order.) But do you really think that Seaport received Oswald's order in late January, but then didn't write up the invoice until March 13th? I would doubt it. And please note that the Seaport order indicates with an "X" the method of Oswald's initial $10 deposit -- via "Cash".

When interviewed Michaelis stated a number of interesting yet unsupported things including That the $10 deposit was in cash... yet he says they only rec'd the coupon... no envelope and no mention of the coupon's request that the deposit be check or money order.... He also says that RAILWAY collected the $19.95... NOT as DVP says that Railway sent the pistol to the PO BOX... and collected the $1.27 and forwarded that to Seaport... He offers the below Railway doc as proof... not so much, right? DJ

This is the only thing that we have to know A.Hidell ordered a .38 It specifically asks for a CHECK or MO for the $10 (1/3) deposit.. There was no envelope, and once again no proof of delivery. Since Seaport did ship the pistol, SOMEONE sent a $10 deposit.. Who did - When - & Where is it? Along with the transfer of the $21.22 to Seaport for the balance.... thanks and happy holiday DJ The other image is a compilation of the Railway shipping doc and Seaport's doc showing they got the $10 deposit but Not the $1.27 COD charge... So Kleins ships different rifles for their C20-T750 orders Lipschultz is okay saying that 900lbs of rifle and cartons costs the same to ship as 750lbs and now Seaport is just fine with not collecting their COD charges... good thing all these add up, huh? DJ

I've been looking at anything I can to prove that Seaport rec'd a $10 CHECK or MONEY ORDER per the coupon's instructions... There is no envelope for this order OR any evidence showing the deposit or COD amount were ever paid.... AND it was supposed to include the $1.27 for COD... I have not found anything else yet... has there been anything? thx DJ

Near the upper right section of the first picture, which is magnified, are there 2 men hiding there with rifles or am I seeing things? Kathy C Don't think you're seeing things... is this any better?

Here is the man I speak of... He seems to have jumped in his seat at this point... reacting to a shot?

Was talking about the guy sitting on the firescape... He MUST have climbed out a window... we assume it was the 2nd floor window below him, OR the 3rd floor and he came down... Might have been a good person to speak to.... DJ