Christian Toussay

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

..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.

..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:

...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...

...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...

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....

Hi.. Thanks for your interest in this. I will try the hosting link you shared... Ok, have uploaded a file: there are several options: "Link", "Direct Link, "Hot Link". Which one should I choose?

...Really sorry about that. I am trying to fix this. Let me know if the links in the new thread "How They Fooled Us" work fine. I have modified the sharing settings in Google Pix

OK, so I am trying to continue this presentation, hoping that now the links will stay: I have modified the Google Pix settings accordingly. If that works, I will repost the missing images on the precedent files. The segment on the head wounds established, among other things, that the official record has been tampered with: - the cavity and bone flaps on top of the head should be seen in the original Moorman picture - the volcano-shaped occipital exit wound should be seen in the "original" Zapruder film: it doesn't because it has been deliberately blurred - the occipital wound is actually present in the autopsy picture, and those who testified to the contrary can now be impeached, like those who forged the record - the frontal entry wound is actually visible in the autopsy picture, and those who did not testify to it can also be impeached There was evidently a massive tampering of the photographic evidence in the case: this could only be done by the immediate and coordinated actions of the Federal Government. How was it done? Let's take a quite striking example, and at the same time let us solve one of the many collateral mysteries of the JFKA: the "box discrepancy arrangement in the Sniper's Nest", which originates from an evident conflict between 2 pictures of the Sniper's nest, taken by two differents photographers at slightly different times. To make it short, one (Dillard) shows one box partially visible on the left, while the other (Powell) actually shows a full barricade of stacked boxes lined up across the window. Because of time constraints for Oswald known movements, Conspiracy Theorists see there proof of Oswald's innocence or at least other accomplices involved in moving the boxes. Lone Nutters are not comfortable with this fact, relying on light and shadow tricks to explain it away, not convincingly. That is where the situation stands as I write this, 61 years after the fact. Now let's see how this mystery is resolved, thanks to this unconventional, but extremely efficient process I am proposing to the JFK Community. I post below a version of the Powell picture: it is recorded in my file as the "Gert Powell Colored Version": I either downloaded it from JFK Lancer or the Robin Unger Gallery. I post below a version of the Dillard picture: this is known as the "FBI Version", notorious for the ominous black arrow that points at ...nothing: So the discrepancy between the two images is clear to see. So let's see now if the process, which has revealed three assassins in Dealey Plaza and the true nature of JFK's head wounds, can help us here. As it happens, it can. Below is a processed result from the Powell data bank. Prepare to be angry. Very angry: I post below an intermediate result (remember, the process is iterative: each step in the "cleaning up" of the image under analysis is documented by a specific file), showing the forgery literally "in the making": you can see the fake box contour around the man's head... So this is a solid example of one of the technique used by the forgers: just hide unwanted details under " special effects" added to the film or picture of concern. We will see more of them, but first: I don't know about you, but I am intellectually curious. So this black arrow pointing to nothing in the Dillard FBI version sort of piqued my curiosity. Why would an FBI analyst, studying this image taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, put an indicative arrow pointing at...strictly nothing. I will present tomorrow results obtained on the Dillard picture. Again, prepare to be very angry...

..I've modified the sharing setting in Google Pix, and posting this to see is the link works now. This is, by the way, an image of the man in the Sniper's Nest window, retrieved from the Hughes film, that is 5/6 seconds before the first shot:

...Ok, I just checked and the problem is still the same with the links: those posted yesterday, and that at least some members have seen, are now broken. The answer I got is "Too many downloads on this file". So this is what I will do: I will start presenting the first segment of the "How They Fooled Us" thread, which explains, with examples, the forgery process used by the conspirators to hide the truth from us and then I will put this presentation on hold until I solve this efing link problem Let me, though, add this to my conclusion on the head wounds: there is a possibility that the fatal head shot did not come from the Grassy Knoll, but from a much forward, and lower, location.

..Hi...The hosting service I used which is compatible with this Forum will only kept them for a few days. Suggest you download those you are interested in. I will try to fix the issue with Google Pix which should normally allows for more availability for pictures posted here... If there are specific images you would want to see in the meantime, just e mail me.

...Thks for the feed back. I am trying to fix this by trying different hosting sites. I am really not of the Digital Generation, and it shows....