Christian Toussay
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Christian Toussay
-
-
Ok, so let us conclude this with the most brazen example of the fraud that took place in order to hide the truth: the Nix film.
We have already seen many examples of alteration and forgery in the record, but the Nix film, capturing both the wall and the fence during the shooting, is something else. Evidently, the men we have already seen in this presentation, two men wearing DPD unifoms, would have been captured in this film too. How they were suppressed and made invisible until now is what I am going to present here. If I were a concerned US citizen seeing this, I would be very angry.
I used the word "remastering" when describing the forgery of the Nix film. The composite below explains why. It shows the evolution of Nix frame 16 from "original" to the final result. The odd perspective of the wall in the Nix film had always intrigued me, just as much as the very weird whitish rectangular artifact behind the wall, which doesn't correspond to the known background of the area.
So let's see what comes up, when we process Nix frame 16 :
Notice (iteration 5) totally unnatural neon-bluish hue on two specific areas:
- the terminal segment of the wall
- the location of the (formerly) whitish rectangular artifact
People who where able to access the images in the "Assassins behind the Fence" thread will remember that this same neon-bluish hue was also present in altered portions of the Nix film showing the fence assassins.
Note striking discrepancy in vertical alignment of terminal segment of wall between "original" and iteration 23 just below.
Notice also that, as the perspective of the wall changes between each iteration, the low bush running along the wall remains unchanged.
This means that the wall we see in the Nix film, and that we have been looking at and poring over for half a century, is actually a Special FX.
It has been painted over the original picture, to modify the perspective of the wall and allow for easier suppression of the unwanted images, i.e. those two DPD officers close to the wall corner. The unexplainable rectangular white artifact behind the retouched wall is simply a patch hiding DPD n°2, located about 6/8 feet from the wall corner, but that the forged perspective makes appear to be much farther down the wall...
I post below different composites, using different results from Nix 16 data bank, to support the above statement:
Notice Coke bottle visible on the left in processed frame:
Here is a crop of the man the forgers suppressed for more than half a century, by using Hollywood Special FX. Note details now visible:
- of course, the obnoxious Coke bottle on the left
- but also a sizable object on the right, close to his chest, which reflects light differently than his uniform
This could be some sort of communication device :
Below is a triple composite, showing the man just retrieved from Nix 16, compared to other images from the exact same area obtained from Betzner (left) and Willis 5 (right). Note high coherence between all three images.
Notice also that in Willis 5, the "sizable object" observed in Nix on the right appears to be right in front of his face:
So let's summarize here:
- when you compare the wall perspective in the Nix film to pictures taken from a different but quite similar point of view, like Moorman (see above), or Muchmore, there is a noticeable discrepancy. Actually the wall in Nix appears to be much longer than it really is, if we believe the perspective
- the processing of Nix film frames shows that in fact the weird perspective of the wall is artificial, and that the "whitish rectangular artifact" is a Special FX
Just like the Powell picture and its fake stack of boxes, the fake trees in Zapruder hiding the fence corner, or the fake hair in the autopsy picture.
The magnitude of the fraud seems almost unbelievable, now that it is crumbling, but remember:
- the techniques applied were the best of the times: think "The Ten Commandments" kind of stuff
- the forgers never thought that the altered films and pictures would be wildly available in the future
- the forgers never considered the fact that technological progress would make tools and methodologies capable of detecting their treachery available to concerned citizens decades later....
Alright, so the next thread will be about the science behind the results presented here. With the exception of somebody calling me a liar, with no argumentation, I appreciate that most expressed questions or skepticism were in a courteous way. One member stated that he could not understand how the process could do what I claim it does: retrieve data invisible to the human eye. So the next thread will be about recognized scientific techniques and methodologies, which may not be known to those criticizing the results presented here, but are identical in conceptual frame, and very similar in operational modalities to what I am presenting here.
-
...a good presentation of the case for the reality of the limousine stop. Even if I had not find confirmation myself, the suppression of the stop would still convince me that the film has been altered.
This means of course that the car stop is a crucial element in the crime, which they did not want us to know about in the first place. The interesting thing in this, I would think, is that we see Greer developing a convoluted explanation for his actions during the shooting, actions that, however, do not appear in the film.
-
...sorry, duplicate post...
-
2 minutes ago, Nick Bartetzko said:
My strong recollection of Jack Brazil's work is about the sewer opening along the street near the stairs. There might be some photos from the opening up high by the bridge, but that was not the emphasis of his work.
...I am talking about page 339 of Livingstone "Kaleidoscope", which shows three images of Jack Brazil standing in " the storm drain on the north end of the Triple Underpass, facing east".
This would be in my opinion a more plausible location for a fourth shooter.
-
On 5/10/2024 at 6:45 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:
How They Fooled Us:
1. photo and film and X-ray alterations.
2. Media influence using CIA assets—see CIA memo and Carl Bernstein’s “The CIA and the Media,” e.g., Life magazine purchasing the Z-film.
3. Control of information to, and collusion with key members of, investigative bodies—e.g., WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, etc.—and use of attorneys more interested in appeasing government clients than getting at the truth.
4. Withholding important information—e.g., the documents that are still being withheld.
5. Taking advantage of people’s natural tendencies to not want to look like “kooks” when the (altered) photos and films contradict their recollections.
6. Taking advantage of people’s natural fears of retaliation if they speak out (e.g., the so-called “Death List”), perhaps even creating that fear (e.g., the shots fired at Roger Craig and Jim Garrison (although the latter is from the JFK movie rather than any firsthand accounts that I am aware of)
7. Refusing to “come clean” about what happened.
8. Denigration of critics as “Conspiracy Theorists” (and “kooks”) by media, and spreading to the public (related to #2 above).
...Hi..
Yep, we agree on all that.
The only point of my presentation on this Forum is to explain that " point n°1" can now be resolved: the true content of films and pictures which were forged to hide the truth can now be retrieved. And I believe Dr Mantik did a great job on the autopsy X-Rays. So evidence of forgery can now be established before a Court of Law. The results I presented on the Dillard and Powell pictures, for instance, are evidence of FBI / CIA tampering with the criminal evidence.
Researching this case for all those years, and coming from a non-American, European culture, I'd like to add this: there is a major difference in knowledge-filter between US citizens and the rest of the world. We know that power struggles exist between competing elites, and that they can manifest outside of the democratic process, by violent means. We are not surprised by these types of events: our history is full of them.
But US citizens generally seem to be reluctant to believe that this could happen in their country. I think this myth of "It couldn't happen here" is the major fuel of the "Oswald did it" supporters.
I also believe that the magnitude of the fraud that was played on them is so immense that, like in the Fable of the Emperor's Clothes, it is actually better and safer to pretend you still see the magnificent garment, and not the Emperor's naked ass...
I will present tomorrow results obtained on the analysis of the Nix film.
We have already seen a fake stack of boxes (Powell, hiding a DPD officer), a fake tree (Z 462 and 472, hiding two DPD officers), a fake occiput (autopsy picture, hiding a vertical, serrated occipital exit), a fake sunlight spot on the fence (Nix, hiding a tree-man team of assassins behind the fence).
But in the Nix film, the forgers had much work to do. Remember, we have already seen evidence of at least two men, wearing DPD uniforms, in close proximity to the wall corner:
- one near the extremity of the wall, close to the steps
- another one about 8 / 10 feet from the corner
Those men are seen from different angles, during different but coherent time sequences, using different cameras and films, so their presence is not under dispute. Thus it is interesting to review what the Nix film, which has captured during a long sequence the area of interest, will reveal.
The original shows nothing, as the image posted earlier shows. But there is nevertheless something interesting in this image, when we compared it to another image, showing the same area with a slightly different point of view:
I post below a composite of the wall section in Moorman, as compared to what is seen in Nix film frame 16. If I may suggest a very easy exercise, please just do this: just flip rapidly your gaze between the two images :
Of course, we acknowledge that the angle of sight is not identical between the two images. Nevertheless, the discrepancy does not correspond to optical / physical laws. There is simply no way Nix could have captured this perspective of the wall from his location, a perspective drastically different from Moorman's, seen just above...
Here is the same composite, both with some captions to facilitate the analysis:
Ok, so we have just compared Nix 16 to Moorman, and noticed several discrepancies, indicative of forgery.
Most notably, the perspective of the wall is very different in both pictures, almost perfectly flat in Moorman, and markedly tilted to the right ( about 20°) in Nix.
Just like we have demonstrated with the Dillard / Powell discrepancy, this significant difference in perspective cannot be explained away by the difference in angle of sight.
So since analysis of Moorman did not show any evidence of forgery on the wall perspective, the conclusion we arrive at is that images from the Nix film showing the wall were forged.
I will post tomorrow results supporting this statement.
-
54 minutes ago, Nick Bartetzko said:
There was a guy years ago named Jack Brazil that analyzed access to the storm drain and also took pics from inside. It certainly appeared doable. I gave all that information to a member here named Dean Hagerman. Found out later that wasn't his real name....
..Those pics can be found in H E Livingstone book, "Kaleidoscope".
The book is not easy to read, since it is essentially a rant / diatribe against Doug Horne and David Lifton, but does contain valuable information.
But the storm drain investigated by Brazil is located at the extremity of the Triple Overpass. If that is the location of a "storm drain" shooter, this would fit more with the facts: a frontal, low-angle trajectory.
I was talking about the theory of a shot coming from one of the sewer openings along the street, where one of the DPD bikers had parked his bike...
-
17 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:
Further, would JFK’s head have even been visible for a shooter located there? Has anyone even tried to determine that?
...The theory of a shot from the drain is alluring, but in my view suffers from severe constrictions:
- the line of sight would be very limited, with very limited space for the shooter to adjust
- the line of sight of a drain shooter would be heavily influenced by the position of the limousine relative to the storm drain and of the escort bikes relative to the target
This last point means that the use of a storm drain shooter is only conceivable if the movements of the limousine once it entered Dealey Plaza where precisely choreographed to allow for such a shot. Any slight derivation of any of the variables (speed and location of target, speed and location of DPD escort bikes, some bystander stepping on the street...) could derail the assassination. I would guess that the plotters went for a more secure modus operandi: three or four shooters surrounding the target from different locations and elevations, with lines of sight allowing for long sequences of target acquisition.
That being said, the actions, and inactions of the Secret Service in Dallas clearly show that this Agency was a crucial element in the JFKA. The fact that the limousine stop has disappeared from the extant films (despite 51 eyewitnesses...) indicates that there was something embarrassing here for the official version. And the fact that Agent Hill, the one not supposed to be here, suddenly realized that he would reach the President more rapidly by running than by waiting for the SS car, of which he was a passenger, to accelerate to protect the President, as is their duty, in my opinion closes the case.
Secret Service complicity is I would think evident, and what they did or did not do that day in Dallas weighs heavily on what finally happened: the illegal motorcade route, the reduced motorcycle escort, the incredibly slow speed inside the kill zone, the total absence of reaction from the Secret Service car just behind the President during the shooting, the stop before the fatal head shot, the illegal kidnapping of the body from Dallas, the delivery of the body to military authorities for a deliberately botched autopsy...
I don't believe this plan needs a storm drain shooter, but I could be wrong. Possibly if we can have the precise location and orientation of JFK's head relative to the storm drain we could go further: we have now quite good images of JFK's head wounds, some of which I posted here.
-
... I do believe a new, concerted effort to analyze the photographic and film record with 21st Century tools and methods is needed.
I remember hearing about those two Hollywood experts concluding that Z 317 showed an artificial patch hiding the back of JFK's head in the Z film. I even downloaded the frame to examine it myself, but got too busy with my own discoveries to pursue this track specific clue
I did, however, examine the possibility of alteration of the occipital head wound, using Z 337, which shows a perfect profile of JFK's head. My reasoning was that, since all the witnesses describe an avulsive exit wound with blasted bones surrounding a hole devoid of bone, it would be easier to spot in this profile shot.
As it happens, I was right, and I posted the results in the "Jfk's Head Wounds" thread. Since most people could not access the image, here it is again:
Z 337 is about 1 second after Z 317, so no human intervention of any kind has been applied to the wound. What we see in Z 337 is as close as we can get to the real aspect of the wound, about 1 second after the head shot.
Evidently, Z 337 has been forged. The original frame does not show any ominous black patch, but does exhibit what appears to be heavy blurring in the occipital area. This burring, as shown in the result posted above, is entirely artificial, and simply vanishes through the processing of the frame.
So, since forgery to hide the occipital wound is definitely present in Z 337, logic would tend to indicate that forgery was also applied to all frames showing the back of JFK's head, like for instance Z 317...
I don't think you need to be any expert in visual optics to realize that the "black patch" in the original frame is unnatural.
In order to contribute something valuabe to this interesting thread, this is what I did: I captured yesterday a version of Z 317 from this thread, and started processing it.
From experience, this is what will normally follow:
- first, the process will produce results establishing that the "black patch" is not part of the original picture, but is an artificial addition. This should be quite easy for the process, and thus quite rapid.
- then the process will start looking for weak signals still present in the altered area, and retrieve them by iterative accretion. This will take more time: it can go from a few days from several weeks, depending on variables (image quality and operational steps taken to analyze the image).
Actually, this is a real-time test of the methodology.
So I post now below a result obtained on Z 317 yesterday, after about 45 minutes of working on it.
Please note that the shape of the patch is clearly seen here, and is clearly artificial: it shows an almost perfect half circle covering the occiput, with a perfectly straight bisecting line joining the two extremities of the half circle:
There is simply no conventional explanation for the massive discrepancy in grain / texture between the black spot, and other areas of the image., except deliberate forgery.
Here is a simple negative of the result above, confirming the artificiality of the "black patch"...:
From experience, it would appear to me that alterations were also done on JFK's right arm, and the shadows surrounding Jackie's face. My guess is that was done by the forgers to darken those specific areas, so that they may look more compatible with the black patch, in terms of light distribution.
I will let you know here how the retrieving of weak signals progresses...
-
...OK, let's finish now the segment on the forgery of the Zapruder film.
But let's review the sequence first:
- I have found several dozen of photographic and film evidence of men wearing DPD officers directly involved in the shooting, some of them present on the Knoll both behind the wall and behind the fence
- I, logically, searched for potential eyewitnesses of these men
- I discovered (actually, re-discovered...) that the closest known witness to the area, Abraham Zapruder, actually went out of his way to tell the WC that there was "indication" of a second assassin. He did not say where this "indication" might be found. Nevertheless, the WC staff's answer establishes he knew Zapruder was talking about something he had filmed...
- Since the camera is entirely focused on the limousine during most of the film, the only place where any "indication" of a second assassin might be found are the few frames where he caught the extremity of the fence just before the extant film stops
- So I decided to process two frames, close enough to allow variations but not total modification or disappearance: so something visible in frame A should, given the known Laws of Physics, still be present in frame B in a coherent fashion , if the image being analyzed is real. I chose Z 462 and Z 472, separated by about half a second (0,6 sec actually), and presented the results
In summary: results obtained on pictures and films led us to an eyewitness's statement, which in turn led us to another set of positive results, confirming the original ones.
Again, I would think people with sound mind would realize that this continuity in corroboration cannot be dismissed as being simply coincidental.
I post below a composite of Z 462 and Z 472.
This the correct time sequence. Note that the movement of the man is coherent with the time sequence, i.e, a bit more than half a second between the two frames:
I'd like to use Z 462 once again, to illustrate why it is important, as I am trying to convey here, that the photographic and film record be re-assessed using 21st Century tools and methods.
The last time this record was scientifically evaluated was in 1978: that is Jurassic Park compared to what we now have at our disposal.
I re-post below the original Z 462, just to illustrate the fact that, even without processing it, it still shows clear evidence of forgery, visible to the naked eye, now that we have already established that the small tree hiding the top of the fence is actually a Special FX.
It is also a good illustration of the difficulty of image analysis. This evidence has been sitting in plain view for 60 years. See if you can find it:
If you could not, there it is:
Here is a cropped enlargement:
Remember, we have already seen that:
- the apparent location of this "small tree", relative to Zapruder and the Fence, is highly suspect and doesn't correspond to what we see in other pictures and films
- this "small tree" actually disappears in the processed results, to reveal the image of two men behind the fence. This is also verified in identical fashion in Z 472
So what we see here is that, in the "original" / unprocessed frame, we still find direct evidence of forgery. Evidently, the alteration of dozens of successive frames could not be done in automated batch sessions in the 60s...
There are very probably many more instances of such slip-ups in the actual record. We should now be able to pick them up....
Ok, so up to the Nix film.
Because of its unique angle of vision capturing the Knoll, the Nix film is actually the piece of evidence which required the most alteration. The forgers could not simply "patch" unwanted details, as they did elsewhere: the Nix film necessitated a whole "remastering" to hide the truth.
Researchers of the Old guard type will remember that first the Nix film was "unavailable", then appeared in a severely cropped version cutting out anything above the wall, then later on in an incredibly dark version still hiding everything behind the wall and fence.
Evidently, there is something with the Nix film which should be of interest to serious researchers...
So that is what we are going to look into right now. But first, I will seek, if I may, contribution from members here about an important feature of the Nix film we are going to analyze.
I post below the original I worked with: frame 16 (my own count) of a clip of Nix I downloaded from YouTube:
"1", "2" and "3" are reference points that will be used later in the analysis.
What I am concerned about, is the whitish, rectangular artifact that is indicated below by a question mark:
Does anyone know what this is ?
On the right of it, we can see the infamous "Shooter in a White Shirt" that was debunked in the 70s.
But what about that whitish rectangular artifact?
I will wait a day or two for contributions / explanations / theories about this artifact, before posting results...
-
5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
Christian - I appreciate what you are trying to reveal. I can’t say I always see what you see, but I don’t dismiss your work based on my own visual acuity. In fact, what you have concluded about shooters dressed as DP, or even DP officers in fact, is really the most logical assumption. It is the perfect cover, and is nothing new. I once posted, after a deep dive into timings and testimony, that officer Tippet could have himself been at the scene. It is not at all contradicted by his movements as we know them. Thanks to Joseph McBride we also know that he was a crack shot. And of course we know he was shortly thereafter killed. I’ve always thought that suspicious in itself, and think it’s highly likely that he was killed because, whether or not he was a shooter, he knew too much.
..Thanks for your interest.
The results that I am presenting here, of massive DPD participation / complicity in the shooting,and of complete forgery of the photographic and film record to hide it, have one strong quality that should not be overlooked: they solve a whole lot of problems / puzzles / mysteries in the case, when you apply simple logic, being the open-and-shut case against Oswald, the systematic mishandling of crucial evidence or the assassination of Oswald live on TV from the basement of the DPD station.
In science, the strength of a new theory is evaluated by its capacity at resolving previously unsolved problems...
As an example, my conclusion is that the "almost perfect plan" was derailed when Oswald, the intended patsy, was confronted alone in room by a DPD officer with his gun drawn, 90 seconds after the shooting, and managed to get out alive.
I do not believe for one second that this confrontation could have been a mere coincidence, now that I have seen the cleaned up pictures of the shooting showing the involvement of men in DPD attire.
Something went wrong there, and led to Tippitt being dispatched to find him, which was obviously not part of the original plan. How Tippitt reacted to these new, emergency instructions about finding Oswald might explain, I would think, why he was killed.
It is significant, I would think, that the DPD officer who stationed and honked in front of Oswald's lodging did not come out to knock on the door to inquire about Oswald. He just honked a few times and left. That is not what you would do if your mission is to find the patsy-at-large, essential for the conspiracy you are a part of.
So my interpretation is that Tippitt got cold feet at some point, or did not know the exact nature of the conspiracy he was involved in, and tried to back up off the deal, having failed to find Oswald, and that is why he was killed.
All the data in the Tippitt case shows that the DPD lied repeatedly, going so far as to forge documents, to explain the presence of Tippitt where he had no reason to be. The fact that the DPD went this far to hide the truth is another confirmation that the Dallas Police was a major player in the JFKA.
-
...I post below an extreme enlargement of the man n°1 we just saw in Zapruder film frame 472 :
Notice that this previously invisible image is enclosed within a semi circular whitish area, which bears no relation to the actual background of the image. These are traces of the forgery used to erase this man.
Below is a composite comparing the Z 472 image to that of Moorman, taken from a perfectly opposite point of view:
We will now analyze frame 462. Here is the original:
Again, we see the same incongruous small tree with dense dark foliage hiding from view the top of the picket fence.
Below are several results from the data bank of Z 462:
Note disappearance of tree limbs and foliage previously obscuring this precise area. Note also the presence, yet again, of a semi circular whitish blob surrounding the previously invisible image of this man.
And here is a detoured version, to close the argument:
There is still more to discover in Z 462 as far as forgery is concerned, so I will conclude this tomorrow.
-
16 hours ago, Michael Crane said:
Oh man,
Now it is oh so crystal clear.The man definately,positively has brown hair & brown eyes.He's stands 6'0 and weighs 170 pounds.
...Interesting contribution. Thank for your input.
You have either:
- superhuman visual skills
- or severely repressed homo erotic fantasy about big hulking men with brown eyes (known as the Jack Reacher Syndrome in specialized circles..)
I would go for the latter: I've heard some people really gets turned on by uniforms...
As stated, my patience with fools is limited. I value all serious questions about results or methodology and will respond to them.
I have no time for nor interest in junior school humor.
-
So, the Zapruder film...
The Z film has become a a festering point of discord within the so-called JFKA research community, some arguing that this piece of evidence has been forged, some arguing ferociously for its authenticy.
So let us be precise here: there are three ways to alter a film :
- you can modify content of individual frames, which is the technique applied to fake the pictures, as we have seen, by hiding unwanted details by blacking out, whitening out, blurring or painted forgery.
- you can modify the time sequence of the filmed event, by editing the continuity : suppressing frames will accelerate, while adding duplicates frames will slow the apparent motion seen on the screen.
- you can modify the background of a movie segment to include what you wish and thus change the perception of what is being seen. That's basically what Hollywood has been doing for 30 years, and calling it cinema. That technology already existed in the 60s, as anyone who has seen "The Ten Commandments" will testify.
The results that I will present here do not prove that sophisticated editing of the Zapruder film did take place, though it is my personal conclusion: I have still to find an explanation for the "stop / almost stop" of the limousine described by dozens of witnesses not being visible in the film.
But I will show now that individual frames of the Zapruder film have been forged: the probability that other tampering might have been done is thus, in my view, strengthened.
We first saw evidence of tampering in the Z film in the thread about JFK's head wounds. I will repost some results here, since most people could not access them. Below is the original Z 337, from the "Image of an Assassination" DVD:
In the triple composite below, note that in the image on the left the heavy blur in the occipital area has already disappeared:
Below is a rotated result of Z 337, showing the shape of the occipital wound:
So this is a first instance of forgery in the Zapruder film.
Here is another one.
But first let me quote Zapruder's closing statements to the WC, which I read with a different knowledge filter after discovering the images of the assassins behind the fence :
"...and they said it all could have been done by one man...Do you know there was indication there were two?.."
Now what kind of "indication" of a second assassin could Zapruder, the man who filmed the most important film of the assassination, be talking about ?
For all we know, he had his eyes glued to the viewer, filming the limousine until it disappears behind the fence corner, of which he catches a few frames. Anything Zapruder could have seen during the assassination, and which would have led him to believe it indicated the presence of a second assassin, is actually captured on film.
And since the last frames of the Z film shows the picket fence corner, where we have already identified the presence of an assassins team, I decided to processed them.
I post below Z frame 472, again from the IMA DVD:
First note that the picket fence corner area, where we have already seen the team of assassins in other pictures and films, is heavily obscured by the foliage of two small trees, with dense dark leaves. Now this is problematic because the larger tree, in the center of the frame, and relative to Zapruder filming it, would have to be located near the extremity of the wall, close to the stairs.
There is no such tree there.
Here is the same frame after processing. Even people with medium visual skills should be able to pick up patterns worthy of interest behind the fence, which is not obscured any more by the foliage:
Here is a different result from the data bank:
Below is a crop focusing on the fence corner:
And for those who missed it, this may help:
Man n°2 appears to wear the same kind of eyewear than the shooter in Moorman and Nix, so I would assume that those two men are actually the shooter and his accomplice having moved closer to the fence corner, about ten seconds after the head shot.
So this is what Zapruder saw, and what led him to his startling closing statement, at a point where his testimony had actually already ended. You would think it was something he thought was important to mention.
As to the WC staff's answer to Zapruder's statement, there it is:
" Thank you. Your films (yes, plural, and that's something else...) have been very helpful to the investigation."
So it would appear that the WC staff knew exactly not only what kind of "indication of a second assassin" Zapruder was talking about, but also where to find it.
So here, we find a mix of several technique: fake trees, blacking / whitening, blur, etc.
I will present tomorrow results obtained on a different frame, Z 462.
-
On 5/6/2024 at 10:55 AM, Charles Blackmon said:
After making some changes to settings on my pc I am able to view the latest images on this thread. Thank you!
Good.
In the concluding thread, I will repost some of the pictures that were not accessible.
-
On 5/5/2024 at 10:16 PM, Nick Bartetzko said:
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. There is the Gordon Arnold statement, but I don't recall if he was confronted by an officer or a person in plainclothes. There is also the question of if he was indeed there. Have you used your technique to try and find him?
The other issue is, and you may have mentioned this previously, the quality of the photos you are sourcing and how that impacts your interpretation. A negative, an original photo, a 1st generation copy, 2nd generation etc.
Also, are you interested in trying to find if Tosh Plumlee was on the South Knoll? That would be the Cancellare photo I believe."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....
-
17 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:
Have you analyzed the different types of photo formats and where you are sourcing them from so as to try to determine a pattern of which photos are consistently being accepted or rejected on this site?
..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....
-
On 4/30/2024 at 7:34 PM, Michael Crane said:
I think we should send this to "America's Most Wanted"
John Walsh does a good job over there.
Hi...
Feel free to do so...
-
On 4/30/2024 at 7:52 PM, Charles Blackmon said:
Am I the only one remaining who still can't see the posted images?
...Let me know if you can now see the image that was reposted by a fellow member...
-
On 4/30/2024 at 11:57 PM, Michael Crane said:
Let me know if you can see this & I'll post more if you would like.
...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...
-
On 5/1/2024 at 6:40 AM, Richard Bertolino said:
The Gif is illustrative, but it doesn't prove anything. I think Pat Speer said that it "demonstrated" something, not that it proved anything. Of course, a sophisticated and intelligent editor could have faked both photos to make them seem consistent.
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.
Zapruder frame 317
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
...I am not sure it is really useful to break down the evidence that much.
I would think that the crucial fact here is that the only agent who was not supposed to be there, Clint Hill, realized he had a greater chance to reach JFK and protect him by running, and not by waiting for the Secret Service car to accelerate.
This spontaneous action tells a lot, for those with eyes to see...