Ian Kingsbury

Great work, Duncan! Regarding "I enhanced the arrowed area. What do you see?", I see two men standing near the window, the one on the right a bit farther back and wearing a white shirt or T-shirt. The one on the left looking down and wearing a tan jacket and possibly holding a rifle vertically in front of him from with the butt of the rifle about at his chest and going down from there. The head of the guy on the right is partially obscured by that brown thing on the left and he's looking down and pretty far to his left so that his head is almost "in profile" and he looks like he has a receding hairline and long sideburns. Only the top two-thirds (or less) of the face of the guy on the left is visible. He has a receding hairline as well and two "locks" or "shocks" (or whatever you call them) of hair from the top-front part of his head are falling onto his forehead because that hair's fairly long and he's looking down at a steep angle. That's what I see. What do you see? --Tommy Based on the premise that we're allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to change our minds, I now see another possibility. The two faces I "saw" earlier are still "there", but this photo is like one of those optical illusions where, for example, you see a chalice in the middle when you look at it one way and when you look at it in a different way you instead see two human faces, one male and one female, facing each othe in-profile and the chalice has "disappeared", the two relatively small images of men I mentioned earlier "disappear" when you focus your eyes differently and "realize" that there is a much larger image of a man's head in the photo and that if this image represents reality, the two smaller heads couldn't, and vice versa. The single large head, which takes up about 80% of the photo, belongs to a man who is looking far to his right and therefore his face is in about "3/4 profile". He has dark hair which is long on top and cascades over his forehead a bit as though he's styled it that way to conceal a receding hairline. He has no sideburns. Anyway, that's what I "see" now. The two smaller men are still "there" in the "background" when you focus your eyes on them, kind of like those "two faces" in the optical illusion I mentioned above. The photo is different, however, from the "chalice/two faces optical illusion" in that in this case the "chalice" (the man's head that takes up 80% of the photo) is so large that it blocks our "view" of the "two faces" (the two smaller men in the "virtual background". The problem now is deciding which image represents reality. That's hard to do because both involve problems with the scale of the two smaller men in the photo's "background" as well as the scale of the one large man in the photo's "foreground": neither seem to be realistic. It seems that small men are too small and the large face is too large. Perhaps they are both illusions. I see other things in the photo, as well, but I hesitate to describe these other things to you. I'd much rather go take another hit of LSD. JUST KIDDING ABOUT THAT. LOL --Tommy P.S. Re: The large head in the "virtual foreground". The guy's face resembles LHO or Tan Jacket Man (IMHO). Tommy Ya Gotta lay off the Lysergic chasers bro ,It Frags the optics!. Ian Never used it, never will. Never thought you did Tommy Sorry no offence meant. My comedic license just got stamped ...Learner Ian.

Great work, Duncan! Regarding "I enhanced the arrowed area. What do you see?", I see two men standing near the window, the one on the right a bit farther back and wearing a white shirt or T-shirt. The one on the left looking down and wearing a tan jacket and possibly holding a rifle vertically in front of him from with the butt of the rifle about at his chest and going down from there. The head of the guy on the right is partially obscured by that brown thing on the left and he's looking down and pretty far to his left so that his head is almost "in profile" and he looks like he has a receding hairline and long sideburns. Only the top two-thirds (or less) of the face of the guy on the left is visible. He has a receding hairline as well and two "locks" or "shocks" (or whatever you call them) of hair from the top-front part of his head are falling onto his forehead because that hair's fairly long and he's looking down at a steep angle. That's what I see. What do you see? --Tommy Based on the premise that we're allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to change our minds, I now see another possibility. The two faces I "saw" earlier are still "there", but this photo is like one of those optical illusions where, for example, you see a chalice in the middle when you look at it one way and when you look at it in a different way you instead see two human faces, one male and one female, facing each othe in-profile and the chalice has "disappeared", the two relatively small images of men I mentioned earlier "disappear" when you focus your eyes differently and "realize" that there is a much larger image of a man's head in the photo and that if this image represents reality, the two smaller heads couldn't, and vice versa. The single large head, which takes up about 80% of the photo, belongs to a man who is looking far to his right and therefore his face is in about "3/4 profile". He has dark hair which is long on top and cascades over his forehead a bit as though he's styled it that way to conceal a receding hairline. He has no sideburns. Anyway, that's what I "see" now. The two smaller men are still "there" in the "background" when you focus your eyes on them, kind of like those "two faces" in the optical illusion I mentioned above. The photo is different, however, from the "chalice/two faces optical illusion" in that in this case the "chalice" (the man's head that takes up 80% of the photo) is so large that it blocks our "view" of the "two faces" (the two smaller men in the "virtual background". The problem now is deciding which image represents reality. That's hard to do because both involve problems with the scale of the two smaller men in the photo's "background" as well as the scale of the one large man in the photo's "foreground": neither seem to be realistic. It seems that small men are too small and the large face is too large. Perhaps they are both illusions. I see other things in the photo, as well, but I hesitate to describe these other things to you. I'd much rather go take another hit of LSD. JUST KIDDING ABOUT THAT. LOL --Tommy P.S. Re: The large head in the "virtual foreground". The guy's face resembles LHO or Tan Jacket Man (IMHO). Tommy Ya Gotta lay off the Lysergic chasers bro ,It Frags the optics!. Ian

Duncan and Chris Top Notch I can see 2 faces in the upper window A dark skinned face on the left and a lighter skinned face on the right, with a carton between/slightly behind them or do I need to go to specsavers ?.

Is it written backwards to give a happy ending?.

Christian You appear to be plugging away on your own here amigo ,We are watching with hope that the penny will drop and we suddenly understand the "limits" of the process .I must admit the work on the right lateral photo is very persuasive do you have other iterations on this photo as it appears a sharp contrast(no pun intended)to the actual photo?. Ian

I don't think the two are related. IMHO. Kathy C Oh those guys! They look like Operation Phoenix guys Colby (William) and Milberg (Warren). Or maybe their cousins! Cheers PF FWIW, there were three of them walking in a tight group in the foreground. (Hey! Maybe they were "tight"!) Perhaps they felt the need to go buy some shoes or take in a movie?.

Yes, David, it would be nice if Christian would weigh in on this. --Tommy Big Frame-by-frame Breakdown of Tan Jacket Man In The Parking Lot clip (plus the film clip itself). Great work by Greda Dunkel at the JFK Assassination Forum! http://www.iimmgg.com/image/fc9a54c65c1b3241a5de760d5ce1a9de --Tommy Prior to the Long coat/ TJM/Signal, the IBM looking guy with glasses seems to be in more of a hurry to take his 2 friends In front of TJM

bump and "Out!" I don't see anything in TJM's left hand in the last two frames of the clip. Perhaps some think that you do or actually do see something. Never mind. Someone else can carry the ball on this now if they want to. I feel like I've been trying to lead horses to water but they don't want to drink. Lots of people want to solve the biggest crime of the 20th Century by themselves and try to prevent others from solving it. Too many contrarian geniuses. I'm convinced that Tan Jacket Man either gave a signal to, or got a signal from. Long Coat Man and then handed something off, in a very secretive way, to Blue Coated Cuban-Looking Man. Therefore, IN MY HUMBLE [explicative deleted; lol] OPINION, the synchronous movements of several of the other people in the clip should be analyzed for indications of conspiratorial activity. Darn straight. Tommy O.K. I am off to ewetoob for an eyeball and will report back any findings (like I did in the other thread)http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11517&st=60 post No. 68 over and out. Ian

You're right. I stand corrected. Good catch. It's virtually impossible to tell what his left hand is doing in the full-speed clip. But in this clip, I don't see an object in his left hand. I see his fingers moving, though. The coolest part of this clip, though, is watching the man in the background (in the raincoat/trenchcoat). Set his moves to some "Saturday Night Fever" music, and you're all set. Or "Murder on the dance floor" Maybe?.

David, That's what I was thinking... --Tommy I.D.?. as in dump'n'run ?.

You're right, Ray. The guy in the blue jacket takes a half step to his left and leans towards Tan Jacket Man. Wes Riddle on the JFK Assassination Forum thinks Tan Jacket Man put something in Blue Coated Cuban-Looking Man's jacket pocket. These guys were professionals. The more I look at this clip, especially the un-cropped versions, the more I see an intricately-choreographed ballet being performed with by many "dancers". It's interesting to watch all of the people who go into motion when Long Coat Man gives Tan Jacket Man "the signal". Even the three guys walking from right to left in the foreground as they very nearly block Robert Hughes' camera's view of "the hand off". Etc, etc --Tommy Tommy Blue jacket/white slacks is seen in other films .I think it starts with a signal from the cop.Do you know who shot this film?.

Christian/DJ The optical aspect of the process is removed until the data resembles something to the viewer if left to run an optical image may not appear as all the program does is crunch numbers .you could not produce anything resembling an optical image unless you are sitting watching the screen and flipping through the various processes .it is not designed to produce an "Image". Your eye sees the manipulated data .The Logarithms are there to prevent manipulation or tweaking. Ian

Hey Ian, There is a bit more motion blur to the car on 459, much more than the LP. I'm examining the sign on the lamp post, it appears blurred as to look twice its size on 458, which is interesting as the post itself does the opposite when you follow it down to the car it gets so small it basically vanishes. A curious optic effect? 458 = Car is sharp but Lamp blurred. 459 = Car blurred but Lamp sharp. Ed Thanks Ed. I am positive that someone on the forum has found this before I will just have to look through the old threads. Ian

So the CIA ran in a ringer to talk about limo stops and strings of shots like firecrackers? Louis Witt -- yet another fine conspiracy witness whose reputation has been sacrificed to the blood lust of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community. I would love to see a program based on restoring the reputation of witnesses who have been unduly smeared. Louis Witt makes a good start. Next up, Glenn Bennett! Could we start with Roger Craig please his story is so frustrating?.

Ed The angle between the limo and camera appears to change drastically between 458 and 459 ,It maybe an effect of the camera, unless Greer veered to the right massively?. Ian I am seeing a drastic angle change in the limo between 458 and 459 can anybody else see it ?.Or is it a camera anomaly?.

Ed The angle between the limo and camera appears to change drastically between 458 and 459 ,It maybe an effect of the camera, unless Greer veered to the right massively?. Ian I am seeing a drastic angle change in the limo between 458 and 459 can anybody else see it ?.Or is it a camera anomaly?.

Christian Eureka!. Serendipity is alive and well .Now the hard bit, how to calculate the routines?, A Risc chip would be preferable as the instruction set is greatly reduced but would no doubt have to compact various routines/subroutines like a zip file. these could be fed into the program core leaving a file bearing the information to storage this is to be used by the main program/data storage device.This would require large amounts of memory to hold the various layers and be able to manipulate said images up and down through the produced layers. So what you have is a non-Photographic process being produced from data and the relation of the known being tested on the unknown ?. Ian p.s. the name of the software was NIH image unfortunately my old Mac plus is a museum peice on some execs desk in Canary wharf but I will try and find an emulator and the software for my current eMac.

Ed The angle between the limo and camera appears to change drastically between 458 and 459 ,It maybe an effect of the camera, unless Greer veered to the right massively?. Ian

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... Christian Thanks for the reply ,I fear todays ultrafast Processors and sectional programming may impede this type of software it had to be programmed live using various subroutines suited to a particular Chip, this was when large scale integration meant in excess of 100,000 transistors .I have no doubt todays silicon marvels could be coaxed into producing some marvelous results . I believe it all lies in the mathematics . By comparing a selection of pixels values and comparing to a known set of variable values within a range and then the next selection depositing the extrapolated data as a layer and add layer after layer to build a possible "match".The numerical aspect is to protect the image from being user lead i.e. adjusting any veiwing characteristics ,Brightness,contrast and so forth. I believe you would quickly adapt to watching a picture build or not ,That you could move to another selection and run through the variables surrounding that group. I do hope I am not Babbling on aimlessly I am a stonemason and well out of my depth on todays core processors I just remember the lessons ( for once in my life!) Chips this will work with 8088 Motorola 68000 and one of the large Fairchild cmos chips one of the first opticals used in thier camera planes.( this may have been one of the E.T. chips as the company was bought out by Schlumberger) Ian

Kathy The person reminds me of DeWitt too or maybe Roy Hargreaves. Ian http://educationforu...ndpost&p=205748 De Witt is interesting. Does anyone know if there's any connection to Elizabeth De Witt, Ohio? John My apologies I was referring to Louie Steven Witt AKA Umbrella man .Are you alluding to DeWitt the friend of Dinkin?. I overheard the name Dewitt(umbrella) whilst straining my ears back in the 70's trying to listen to a conversation taking place in a pub in London I can only assume this was about the time of the HSCA ,But the name (Dewitt) stuck in my head sorry for any confusion The synapses fire irregular pulses at my age. Ian

No, this thread (as I mentioned before) is useless and worthless. Merely started to cast doubt about something of which there is NO DOUBT -- Oswald took possession of Revolver V510210. We KNOW he did, because that SAME gun was in his hands in the theater. Why this stuff is even debated is a mystery to me. (Well, really it's not much of a mystery after you've hung around CT boards like this one for a while. CTers want LHO to be innocent of ALL murders he committed on 11/22. Simple as that.) Maybe DiEugenio missed this one: http://hnn.us/articles/mel-ayton-review-jfk-assassination-logic-how-think-about-claims-conspiracy-potomac-books-20 "John McAdams’ book is the final nail in the coffin of conspiracy theorists who have grabbed the attention of the mainstream media for far too long—mainly because the media understands all too well how the public loves a mystery. If John McAdams’ book is read in conjunction with the excellent books mentioned earlier in this review the JFK assassination will be no mystery at all." -- Mel Ayton Dave Speaking of nails my neighbour can drive a 6 inch nail through his left eyeball and not leave a mark. This however does not show up in a picture and it will not work if you point a camera at it. Please could you give me some advice on how to market this phenomenon,You are so good at punting your Illware that I thought you might help the chap raise his profile. Thanks Ian

Christian I once did a computer course to enhance my CNC skills. The tutor was into graphics big time and he explained a method for extracting data using pixel position and the ASCII codes for the colours 255 being black and 0 =white. The memory at the time was restricted to a 1 byte pass containing sufficient information to build up a picture in layers (much like a dot matrix printer).There was some talk at the time (Late 70's)of using some very clever algorithms to extract and manipulate the data I was surprised by the results even then. I got a 1MB mac plus in 84 and acquired a piece of shareware called NiMH Image I understand this is the National Institute(For)Mental Health . This software was used to discern disease by colour from Brain tissue slices, it was extremely accurate and worked at pixel depth I can only assume the logarithms utilised by this software would be similar to those used by yourself to extract these images. I still use a Mac and have Graphic Converter software which is also a powerful aid ( and Freeware). I wonder have you tried applying this technique to the Back Yard or Neeley st. pictures If they are composites this would reveal(in a pattern along the line of the union)the various values for each part of the originals .Its worth a try!. I would certainly be interested in any information you can give me. Thanks Ian

Dulles was so blatant , but the others just swallowed it wholesale.

No offence taken John. Just to clear things up, I'm not wrong, because I don't beieve that "Tan Man" as he has come to be known is in the window either. I merely posted the enhancement for the benefit of those who participate and believe the speculation that Tan Man may be the shooter. This is why I posted "And now, a bit of speculation" and not " I speculate that" Re: Your question. The original image is a screenshot from a preview of JFK: The Lost Bullet. The first image in my post is an unaltered crop from the captured screenshot saved in png format. I have ordered the DVD, but it will not arrive here in Scotland until late December, so I will not therefore be able to work with higher quality images until then. John What is your opinion on Bakers affadavit .It was I who speculated on "Tan Man" being of interest( and of being the man in the Tan or light brown jacket on the 3rd/4th floor as in Bakers affadavit) as he appears in more than 1 film/Photo.I just wonder why a police officer would make a statement of fact and then "Lose" all concern with this important event When the "Push" came?. Ian P.S. Is the Surf up ?.

DVP Thinks Chicken Nuggets just evolved. That Tan Jacket man just will not go away, Baker tried too rid us of him so did Truly who also COULD have identified the "employee" who was "walking away " But decided not to volunteer this name and luckily they all forgot to ask him who this was . Truly the facilitator/enabler.