Christian Toussay

Good. In the concluding thread, I will repost some of the pictures that were not accessible.

"I actually/finally see some of what you are describing. As I have been to DP twice, the area you are describing is very open and I don't recall comments by witnesses seeing DPD officers in front of the fence at the time of the shooting." I will conclude the pix and films presentation with an analysis of eyewitness testimonies that actually support the results presented here of a DPD decoy team behind the wall during the shooting. You might be surprised, as I was when I started exploring this: my initial reaction was identical to yours: "Now if there were DPD personnel behind the wall during the shooting, there's a strong possibility that at least one witness saw them..." I actually found several, notably while reviewing WC testimonies. In a different example, photographer James Altgens told David Lifton that he noticed that " a group of people appeared behind the wall, just a few minutes before the passage of the motorcade". He remarked to Lifton that he thought it a weird place to watch the motorcade, since it was actually finishing. For some reason, Lifton then asked him if there were any Police officers among them. Altgens response: " I seem to remember that there were..." Re Gordon Arnold: I actually never look for anything specific when processing pictures: I processed them and see what comes up: this minimize cognitive bias. If you know exactly where Gordon claims to have been standing, I can look it up in the results I already have produced. The origin of pictures and frames I use is always specified: they either come from known JFK galleries or were screen captured via YouTube. Evidently, the process doesn't have the limitations of classic image enhancement, and is able to retrieve data even in degraded support. I will resume the presentation tomorrow with the analysis of forgeries in the Zapruder film....

...Alright, let me conclude here the analysis of the pictures and films showing the wall area during and immediately after the shooting. We have seen how known images of BDM (Betzner, Willis 5) have been enhanced sufficiently to establish that the " Caucasian individual in dark clothing" identified by the HSCA in 1978, is actually a man wearing a DPD uniform, located at the extremity of the wall near the steps. We have also found, unknown, additional images of BlackDogman (Moorman), some (Betzner, Nix 16), establishing that there was at least one other DPD officer behind the wall. Comparative analysis of the BDM artifact in Willis 5 establishes that this is the same man seen in Nix 16, and thus different from BDM n°1. I will present now results obtained on other pictures of the shooting and its immediate aftermath: it is my conclusion that they validate the results previously presented here, which can be summarized as follows: - the shooting in Dealey Plaza was executed by men wearind Dallas Police Department uniforms. The assassination was a classic military triangular shooting, with shooters in the Snipers Nest, the DalTex 2nd floor and behind the fence. The possibility of a 4th shooter with an almost frontal, low front to back trajectory can not be excluded. - the Knoll team needed extra cover because of its exposition to potential witnesses. To this effect, a cover team of "DPD officers" was deployed behind the wall. Those men, and the forgery used to suppress them, are the collective BlackDogMan seen in the known pictures. As an example, I post below a composite showing a third image of DPD n°1 near the stairs. This new image was retrieved from Willis 6, and it is presented in a composite to facilitate the analysis: Note, again, high correlation between all three images. Below is the same man, retrieved from the Nix film (frame 12). That's thus the 4th image of this man : Not wanting to push the point, but again, I would think that people approaching this presentation with an open, unbiased mind, would realize very quickly that any argument about the results presented here being a result of pareidolia / optical illusion is nonsensical. The alleged optical illusion is moving coherently along a time line, something no known optical illusion can do, and is also unaffected by the changes of point of view from the different cameras, nor by the differences in support (type of film) or equipment (type of camera). But maybe four images of this man is not enough. So how about a fifth? I post below the original Bond 4 picture, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. We can see everyone still appears frozen and looking at the Knoll, with the exception of a Police officer running in that same direction: I'd like first to attract the viewer attention to two important details that will be discussed later in this presentation: - note that the DPD officer who has dismounted his bike has not yet crossed the street - note also, on the other hand, that Zapruder and Stitzman have already left the pedestal on the wall where he was filming. So, back to the image: the wall is seen far in the background, and does not look very promising. Let's see what this little, low key methodology can do with this. I post first below a composite illustrating how the process works, by simple iteration. One member here said he cannot understand how the retrieval of hidden images can be done. So there it is: Here is an enlargement of the final result: Here is a different result from the Bond 4 data bank: It is my interpretation that this man is holding a weapon vertically on the right, but of course I could be wrong. I post below a composite so that viewers can compare an extreme enlargement of DPD n°1 in Moorman with the image just retrieved from Bond 4. We will of course remember that enlargement is the Nemesis of optical illusions. So here it goes: So these men are in the exact same location, and wear the same clothing. The time difference between the two images is about 20 seconds. This reminds me of a story about a duck... I could present many more images of those men, who are actual participants in the shooting. I will only show one more to illustrate my conclusion that, in addition to those two DPD officers now largely documented, there were more stationed along the wall. I post below a result obtained on a rarely studied picture, Altgens 8, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and capturing the wall area: Here is the image that can be retrieved in it. This man, apparently kneeling, is located left of where Zapruder was standing: Again,I think it's important to stress that the attitude of the men involved in the assassination, and that we can now see with our own eyes, does not at all correspond to that of impersonators posing as law enforcement to do their deed. Those men, as I have shown here, are captured in films and pictures several dozens of seconds after the crime, still present on the crime scene. If they are impersonators, how come they have apparently absolutely no worry about being confronted by bona fide law enforcement personnel ? No worry about being caught in pictures or films ? No worry about potential eyewitnesses ? My conclusion is that those men, whoever they were, knew they were participating in a Federally sanctioned "National Security Operation", and that their bases were covered... The fact, that I hope I have established by now, that the record was indeed forged to hide their presence is a very conclusive argument in favor of the above theory. I will continue this tomorrow with the forgery done on the Zapruder film, which has been a hotly debated for decades. I think we can settle, at least in part, that debate....

..All images posted here with valid links are posted through the hosting site PostImage: they all are in JPG format. That's the only site I found (recommended by a Forum member here) which works here and allows "no expiration date", meaning they will remain valid for at least quite some time. I've heard that some browsers / anti virus software can identify such sites as "unsafe", and thus block the access. Anyone seriously interested in this and not able to access the images can contact me directly: I will supply you via email with the specific images you are interested in....

...Not sure I can be of any help here: I struggled for days before being able to post a valid link / image... I will resume the presentation tomorrow....

Hi... Feel free to do so...

...Let me know if you can now see the image that was reposted by a fellow member...

...Thanks for helping me here....

...So we have seen how the BlackDogMen mystery has been solved: those men, wearing DPD uniforms, were deployed behind the retaining wall, to provide cover for the assassins behind the fence. This was rendered necessary because the knoll was, of the three shooter locations we have found in the record, by far the most exposed. Those men were clearly visible and of course captured in films and pictures. They had to be suppressed. The results on the classic Betzner BDM presented here illustrates how that was done: blacking out, whitening out, and blur. The result of these manipulations created the BDM artifacts in Betzner and Willis 5. As I have already explained, the record once processed reveals many more BlackDogMen... There were at least 2 men wearing DPD uniforms in close proximity to the wall corner. I am posting below a rear view of the retaining wall, so as to indicate more precisely there position: DPD n°1 has just been presented here: he is seen in Moorman bending over the wall at the exact moment of the head shot, and in Betzner. I will now present images of the second BlackDogMan that can be identified with certainty, indicated in the image above as DPD n°2. But first, I will have to disgress and show you a picture taken by Jim (?) Towner in the immediate aftermath of the assassination: This image shows that a soda / Coke bottle was positioned on the wall very close to the corner. The presence of this Coke bottle was much debated during the 70s, when the JFKA researchers (either pro or anti WC) did not have access to documents other than the WC (no FOIA) , and analysis of pictures (the films were not available yet) were actually all we have to try to dig deeper into the case. So every nook and cranny of the available photographic record was inspected and hotly debated. This bottle was even used as an explanation of the BadgeMan image by supporters of the WC conclusion at the time. What will interest us is that its presence is documented and , as we see above, captured on film. Now unless you believe that assassins would bring along drinks while waiting to assassinate the President, it would seem to me that this seemingly innocuous detail is worthy of attention. How come this Coke bottle is present on the crime scene? There is only one testimony, by Marilyn Stitzman (Zapruder's secretary, present with him on the pedestal on the wall) which can explain this: she stated she saw a young Black couple, eating lunch and "drinking Cokes", sitting on a bench just behind the wall before the shooting. Conspiracy theorists, who did not have much to push their case at the time, were of course not happy with Mrs Stitzman's testimony, which was brought as an explanation for the presence of BlackDogMan. As for me, I would think that the Towner picture verifies Stizman's testimony of "a young Black couple drinking Cokes", present at some point in time behind the wall, before the assassins' team got into position, because we actually have a picture of one of those Coke bottle. I will post now a composite, showing three different images of DPD n°2 (the caption indicate "n°3" but I have explained why). That's quite a significant number. The fact that they come from different point of view, different time sequence and different material/support totally destroy the "random artifact" argument. This composite was initially posted in the " Debunking the Pareidolia Argument" thread, but most people could not see it so here it is again. The image from Nix 16 will be used extensively in the analysis of the forgery of the Nix film: Again, people believing that this composite can be explained using the optical illusion / pareidolia argument don't really understand, in my opinion, the major difference between "possibilities" and "probabilities". The high coherence between these three images absolutely destroy this. I have no formal scientific training, so let me express this with my own words: - this composite shows what I would call " a translation of corroborative elements from one picture to the other" with picture 1 (Betzner) directly linked (clothing / body position) to picture 2 (Nix 16), itself linking to picture 3 (Willis 5: clothing / Coke bottle). Now of course, the second Coke bottle seen in Nix 16 and Willis 5 is a new discovery brought out by the process, and is a minor detail in the assassination lore. I have used it here only to exemplify that the process doesn't produce results out of thin air. The fact that it can retrieve the highly probable second bottle on the wall (last time I checked, a couple meant two people...) and at the same time retrieve the image of a DPD officer close to it, should lend much more credence to the latter: OK, so I will post tomorrow other examples of BlackDogMen, retrieved from other pictures of the shooting...

Yep. I am actually quite surprised that this "translation hypothesis" to explain the Dillard / Powell discrepancy has ever been seriously considered. It indicates to me either a complete misconception of optical laws, or a voluntary intention to deceive. To close this interesting point, I post below crops of both original pictures establishing that, actually, the box doesn't move between the 2 pictures: So the GIF, and the explanation it purports to illustrate, is proved wrong. This should never have been an issue to begin with. Let me preempt now the only argument that critics could now try to put forth: "Well those previously invisible boxes were made visible by the change of perspective, which modifies light distribution in the windows." Yeah, that seems smart, except that it is not. The amount of light getting into a finite set will not vary with the observer 's position. To obtain the apparent result seen in the original Powell, you would have to move the light source. As it happens, the light source here is the sun... I will stand thus by the results I have presented here: the discrepancy between the 2 images results from the suppression of the image of a DPD officer, captured in Powell about 20/30 seconds from the last shot, at a time when nobody, much less a Police officer, was supposed to be here.

...OK, so I have already presented several techniques used by the forgers to fool us all those years: - Special FX: adding fake data to modify the overall meaning of the image, the stack of box in Powell being a point in case - Blacking out or whiting out, depending on context, unwanted details or whole areas, as seen in Nix, Moorman and Altgens DalTex pix. - destroying the image by camouflage: blacking out and whiting out different portions of the unwanted image, so as to confuse the usual light-and-shadow decoding pattern that the human brain utilizes to make sense of visual information. This was used to hide the man just shown in Moorman. The finishing touch for all three techniques was to add a good amount of blur to the areas of concern. This third technique is actually what generated the notorious BlackDogMan artifact, which was much discussed in the 60s and 70s, as some researchers thought this could be someone involved in the assassination. This artifact, coherent with a man crouching behind the wall, is seen in 2 pictures, Betzner and Willis 5, and got its moniker from the fact that it looks a bit like a dog sitting in profile on the wall. The HSCA analyzed the images and concluded that the images indeed showed " a Caucasian individual in dark clothing". They never published details of their analysis, though. So I will post below some results obtained on this iconic picture. This is first a crop of the original Betzner BDM pix: I post now a composite of this original plus 2 processed results. Note that the results were derived from a detoured version (background excised) of the original. The composite also illustrates the iterative nature of the process: Notice how the image appears to shrink between the original on the left, and the last result on the right. That is because the process has markedly diminished the blurring of the image by reducing uncertainty about the boundaries of groups of pixels composing the image. Here is a different composite: So it would appear that the mysterious BlackDogMan is, yet again a man in Dallas Police uniform: he is very probably the man seen in Moorman above in this thread. What is quite interesting here in terms of forgery technique, is that you can still see the BDM pattern on the right of the image, while the rest of the image has "evolved" along the process, revealing previously invisible details on the left. This is definitively evidence of forgery. One of these details is how the shadow extends through the air on the right of the man's face, forming the "neck" of the Black Dog artifact: shadows simply cannot appear in mid air... What is also interesting, I would think, is that we see here that the process did not retrieve some fanciful image, but did retrieve the image of "a Caucasian individual in dark clothing", just like the HSCA experts did in 1978. It simply went one step further, by allowing us to identify the clothing in question. So, as a summary: Those BlackDogMen actually appears in many pictures and films: they were members of a decoy team deployed to cover the assassins' team in the parking lot, the most exposed of the three teams captured on films and pictures. It is difficult to assess exactly how many were present in the wall corner area, because of possible movements between frames. I have one result showing three, but most results show two. In any case, as we've seen in Moorman, and just above, there was a DPD officer at the extremity of the wall near the stairs. I will post tomorrow results establishing the presence of at least one other DPD officer further down the wall.

..Look at the Dillard enlargements I posted: the Dillard box on the left is actually touching the windowsill. And in the processed results from Powell, that is the case too, as I show below. It is on the same horizontal plane than the box corner visible on the right. The GIF simply shows the theorical movement of the box from one image to another: what I am saying here is that this movement is impossible, optically speaking. Note that Dillard is almost perfectly horizontal: if we use a protractor, Dillard's box is at 0°, and Powell's at about 100°. That is a major translation for a change of perspective between the 2 images that doesn't appear to be superior to 20° on the horizontal plane. More over, the change of perspective between Dillard and Powell is anti clockwise (tilted to the left), while the suggested movement of the box (allegedly caused by this change of perspective) is clockwise (left to right). See below:

...Sorry if I sounded abrasive: this was not intended at all. I meant the GIF you posted... " The box that seems to move is a box in the background, and it appears to move because the photos were take from two different angles." I think I have explained and shown why this is not the case. The Dillard box is not in the background, but on the contrary touching the windowsill, as can be seen in the crop I posted. So it is on the same horizontal plane than the box corner on the right. As I have shown, the Dillard box would have to go from "9 am" to "1 pm" (relative to the vertical segment of the window above), because of a change in point of view, while this same change does not affect any other features (box corner, left Negro man) in both pictures relative to that same reference point. Ask any pilot, "9 am" to "1 pm" is a major movement. This is an optical impossibility. Dillard's box cannot move into space: it is immobile. Its apparent displacement should be caused only by the movement of the camera, which would affect all and every reference points within these pictures. If it doesn't, like it is the case here, then we have a problem. But, as everyone can see, the Dillard box actually crosses the vertical midsection of the window above, to get into the Powell position. Let me say it again, this is an optical impossibility. The relative position of the Dillard box to the vertical segment of the window above cannot change in space. It can change in perception, but this perception affects all reference points in the image. Thus, if the box appears to "move", all reference points will also "move". Changes in perspective may apply but the overall perspective will be resilient between reference points in close proximity to one another. So the presence of the Powell box, high up on the right side of the window , while the Dillard box lies low in the left corner of the same window, and while no other reference points in both image has been affected by the "panning" of the camera, is a confirmation of the forgery. I say confirmation because I have already posted images of what was being hidden.

Hi... Thanks for your interest. Quite honored, in fact... This appears to be a blending of the two images. I am not sure that it establishes anything, other than software can now extrapolate images connecting two different point of view. This does not mean that the proposed motion is realistic. Actually, the GIF simply shows what kind of motion the Dillard box would have to go through to be in the Powell box position. I am simply saying, and showing, that this specific motion is impossible I will give you below two elements which, I believe, demonstrate that the GIF you posted is not realistic, from an optical point of view. First notice how the box on the left (Dillard pix), goes all the way to the right, crossing as it does the vertical separation in the window just above (Powell pix). If we were to use a clockwork analogy, the box in Dillard goes from 9 am in Dillard, to 1 pm in Powell. Now: - notice of the sharp box corner seen on the right in Dillard (use the vertical window separation above as reference) doesn't move at all, with respect to this reference point. Those two box are on the same plane, and close together, meaning the difference between their relative position from the camera is minimal, optically speaking. Their movement should be correlated if the image is genuine. - now look below at the Negro man on the left on the 5th floor. The same phenomenon is at work again: his position relative to the vertical segment of the window above does not move one inch between the two pictures, while the Dillard box travels all the way across the window to reach the Powell box position So I will conclude that the Dillard / Powell discrepancy cannot be explained how you proposed in this GIF. The proposed explanation, on the contrary, would seem to me to support the data I have presented: - the stack of box cannot be explained away by some optical trick - the "impossible" movement of the Dillard box to reach the Powell box position establishes that, as I have shown here, the Powell box is a forgery

...Ok so I will continue this with the evidence of forgery of the record. We have already seen the use of Special FX ( fake hair, fake stack of box), and total black out of unwanted details (the fence team, the DalTex team). I will present more examples of such forgeries, in the Nix and Zapruder films. But now let us examine a different type of forgery. That is the third one, so evidently those guys came prepared. Below is a high quality crop of Moorman, showing the fence and the retaining wall. "1" and "2" indicate the accomplice and the shooter, already analyzed in details. But there is actually a third man captured in the crop of Moorman below, who has remained unnoticed all these years. I'll give you a clue: he is behind the wall. Please try to locate him before looking at the processed result I will post just after: Ok, so I will post now several results from the data bank of this specific file. Note top corner of retaining wall on the left, to verify the man's position. This man, again wearing a DPD uniform, is actually "BlackDogMan", yet another collateral mystery of the JFKA that we are, very quietly, solving through this presentation: It would appear that the man is bending over slightly over the wall corner, as if to look directly into the limousine. Nota: the red artifact just above the man's head is artificial: I mistakenly fed into the data loop an iteration marked with a big red "1" just above the head. This nevertheless is interesting because it illustrates how the process work; since the red "1" subset is unsupported in the data loop (it only appears once), the process is methodically erasing it in each successive iteration. Here, it simply appears as formless reddish smear. That is how the process cleans up forgery from the data. Here are different results. They have been roughly detoured to facilitate the analysis: Here, I have simply applied Scratch Removal to a processed result: And, for those who would maybe consider, again, the Pareidolia Argument, and enlargement being the absolute Nemesis of optical illusion/pareidolia, here is an extreme close up of this man: Now if you go back to the "original" image above in the thread, you might now be able to pick up, depending on your visual skills, a faint image of this man. What they did was: - first black out portions of the image were darkness/low light is prevalent - also "white out" portions of the image where light is prevalent - add a few touches here and there of same, depending on resulting context - blur the area of concern This is how, by suppressing the correct light and shadow distribution in the image, which is how the human brain (yes, we see with our brain, not our eyes...) decode visual data, you actually erase this man from the image. Nothing complicated or exotic here: this basic concept is why military clothing in battlefields has those weird printed design... I will present tomorrow other examples of this same type of forgery technique, showing how they were used to erase the presence of a decoy team behind the fence during the shooting, thus leading to the umpteenth collateral mystery that we will solve in this presentation: BlackDogMen. Yes, plural.

..Hi Bill, Glad to see you're keeping an eye on this.... As I explained, I have no formal scientific training: the concept was designed as a thought experiment about retrieving weak signals in finite data sets in market research. So I only applied it to pictures when I realized that they were de facto finite data sets, and the theorical process should be operational, if it worked, on pictures also. Basically, the process rests on the generations of N derivations of the source set, which are cross checked against each other in a theorically endless feedback loop. So yes, the images presented (results) are always a blending of N iterations, themselves generated by the interpolation of N previous iterations. And there is an averaging, along the process, of the value of the different groups of pixels forming the image. So what would seem to be about, in my opinion, is that the process is a mix of a Bayesan approach (the new derivations from the source constituting the required "new objective information") and Frequency, with the more resilient values prevailing along the course other the rest, while the feedback loop crunches/cross checks the ever increasing data bank against itself. Actually, when I designed this, I thought it was actually quite simplistic. Again, the process does not require any sophisticated knowledge in programming or image processing. I would not know how to remove a specific layer from a picture, as Tom Wilson did. I simply use the overlay tool to interpolate two different iterations, and assess the results. I of course use the usual image processing tools, like light, contrast, sharpness, softening, etc. at will on any iteration. That's all. I would be, I think, out of my depth, in trying to go further than that in terms of scientific language. I realized long ago, after the first undeniable results I was obtaining, that this would have to be litterally back engineered by someone capable of explaining it in acceptable scientific language. This I can't do. If you want to pursue this, I can supply you with a complete file on some specific picture, so that you can analyze the data bank from source to final result, and verify how the image appears incrementally.

I appreciate that you express your skepticism with courtesy. First thing I'd like to ask is: have you tried the process yourself to see what it is about ? I have explained several times, including here, the very basic and limited operational steps (3...) to do it, if you are interested, and then we can talk about it if you want. Secondly, you state that " If there really was information reflecting a hidden police officer in the window in the original analog photographic fake, then it would be lost in the digitization process." Now how can you be so certain of that, since the process I am trying to present here has absolutely nothing to do with conventional image processing techniques? I will show you, as an example, how this simple methodology was able to beat the HSCA experts of 1978 when we will analyze the BlackDogMan artifacts in this thread. I have already mentioned, in a previous post here, that the last thread of this presentation will be specifically dedicated to the science behind the results here. I also said that, when I checked scientific papers in 1998/2000, I could not find anything comparable to what I was doing, but, that in 2014, I did. So, how about some homework 😉 and then we'll discuss it? If you can't find anything, let me know and I'll give you a clue...

.. A triangular military crossfire has to provide different locations and elevations to cover all bases. A shooter in the DalTex 2nd floor window, with a low, back to front trajectory, is compatible with: - the low angle wound in JFK's back - the hit in the chrome of the windshield above Kellerman's head - the ricochet wound of James Tague There was actually a man, sitting on the staircase outside the 2nd floor window, very close to the shooter. In his position, he would have hidden from view the shooter from anyone in the adjacent window. Subsequent pictures show that this man disappeared immediately after the shooting. This man has never come forward to testify and his identity is unknown.

...I don't think so, if you were you wouldn't be here I presume. As explained, I will end this presentation with a specific thread on the scientific basis of what I am doing, and presenting here. I had tried to explain as simply as possible how this is done. There are no more than three operational steps: choose a source; derivate; interpolate. The retrieval of the DPD image is possible simply because it is present in the data set under analysis, even though invisible to human eyes. That is the actual definition of "weak signals".... I will show how the conceptual fame of this apparently uncanny process I developed has been now validated by experts, and validated in peer reviewed scientific paper. So, on to tomorrow for more evidence of the forgery...

Ok, the link prblm is apparently solved. I will update all preceding threads with those new links. OK, so we've seen that, just as the Ruler's Puzzle in the back-of-the-head autopsy picture, the Powell / Dillard box discrepancy is explained by forgery of the record: in the first case, it was about suppressing the occipital exit wound; in the second case, it was about suppressing the presence of a man in DPD uniform in the Sniper's Nest, about 30 seconds after the last shot. In both case, Special FX, i.e. the inclusion in the data set of deceptive information was used: fake wet hair to hide the occipital wound, and a stack of box to hide the DPD officer. That's one method, that we will find again in the Zapruder and Nix films. But let us see different technique of the forgers. I am reposting below (not sure it is still accessible here) the Dillard picture: As captioned, this is an FBI document, so the black arrow pointing at nothing intrigued me. So I decided to also processed, just in case, the Dillard picture. I post below a result from that processing: And here are two different iterations from the data bank: So this is the fourth picture, so far, being presented here of a man wearing a DPD uniform present in the Sniper's Nest from 10 minutes before (Bronson film) to 30 seconds after (Dillard / Powell) the shooting, all this data coming from different material, different point of view and different time sequences. That's quite a lot of corroborative data. But the discovery of this man does not actually resolve the mystery of the FBI Arrow. As I am about to post, I realize I can't locate the files I wanted to present about the solution to this Arrow problem.... So this is what I'll do; I will use the processed result posted here, and simply apply three settings: - first I will light up the image as much as possible: We can now see what appears to be coherent data where there was previously nothing. - then I will apply an Auto Enhance command (basically a set of options with various combinations of light/contrast/sharpness/colour balance, whatever: I chose one) and then Scratch Removal, which is essentially a coordinated blurring tool, on the segment of the open window: And here, I have added a few indications to facilitate the analysis: So here, with the Dillard Picture, we find a second type of forgery: the total blacking out of unwanted data. We have already seen this in the "Assassins' Team Behind the Fence", with the complete darkness over the retaining wall and fence, and we will another striking example in Moorman. Here again, we have indisputable evidence of Federal treachery and felony. The results presented just above, anyhow, confirms how efficient and easy the process is: the results are simply three-steps-removed from the processed result used as a source... I will continue with this in a day or two..

...Thks a lot George, this seems to work...

..Hi... I also posted an intermediate result, actually showing the man into the fake box contour. I don't know if you can see it. The stack of boxes was simply painted over the original image. I have explained several times what I am doing, which is very simple methodology I designed to, possibly, retrieve weak signals in finite data sets. The process has less than 5 operational steps, and does not require any exotic software: any software capable of generating overlays will do. I will conclude this presentation with a specific thread about the science behind the results shown here. But to answer your question, this is simply about building an ever-increasing data bank of iterations which are crosschecking each other at infinitum via a feedback loop. These are the operational steps: - 1) select a source image - 2) create a derivation / new iteration of the source, by using any of the usual optical settings: light, sharpness, smoothness, contrast, texture, whatever; save it - 3) interpolate (meaning: add, blend, differentiate or multiply) this derivation of the original with the original itself, using the overlay function of your software: you will thus create a new iteration again; save it. You now have two iterations plus the original source in your data bank. All those iterations, derived from the same source set, are pertinent to how to resolve remaining unknowns within said data set. You can of course do that ad infinitum. What you will observe is that, because objective information will have a propensity to manifest more frequently and more coherently than artificial data / noise, there will be be a considerable reduction of overall noise (in pictures, this will translate as "blur") and a retrieval of previously weak (or invisible) signals, simply because, once again, if they really represent objective information, they will be more resilient along the process than noise will ever be. . This explains how purposefully hidden images, invisible to the naked eye, can actually be retrieved and revealed. In 1998, when I started this research, I could not find anything in scientific papers about what I was doing. In 2014 I actually discovered that a new methodology, very similar in its concept and operational modalities to what I am doing, had been scientifically acknowledged and called " a major breakthrough". I will extend on this in the "Science Behind the Results" Thread.

...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: