Christian Toussay

..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:

...Glad to see the links are working... Will wait to see if it lasts.... Re your question: I would not think so, because we can see apparently undisturbed light distribution on the area which would be covered by the arm. The man, to me, appears to be merely standing and looking down, with his arms to his sides. He may still be holding the weapon seen in Hughes frame n°2, but that would be an extrapolation... Let me add this, which I think is important: the presence of this assassin, 20/30 seconds after the last shot, confirms what we saw in the segment about "The Assassins' team Behind the Fence", where a man in DPD uniform can be seen, standing on a car trunk, behind the shooter. Both men shows absolutely no sign of worry about being apprehended, identified, or caught on film. The man behind the fence, actually, was meant to be seen, giving the impression that the area was under police control and thus secure. Again, that is in direct contradiction to the classic scenario of some disgruntled party pulling some Mission: Impossible stunt to kill the President, and getting away with it because of "skeletons in the closet" that they used to blackmail the Federal Government into the Lone Nut conclusion. This is not what we see here: we see the Sniper's Nest shooter, 20/30 seconds after shooting at the President, cool as ice, looking casually down the street to check the aftermath of the shooting. So my analysis here is that those men knew, somehow, that they had absolutely nothing to worry about...

...Maybe they could, but as the result I am trying to post here establishes without a doubt, this is not the explanation: the apparent discrepancy is caused by the removal of the image of a man in dark blue uniform standing in the window about 10/30 seconds after the last shot. You will find the same type of "discrepancy", and the same explanation, for the ruler's position in the back-of-the-head autopsy picture: it makes no sense in the original picture, measuring nothing, but makes sense when the image is cleaned up of the forgery, revealing the wound that is being measured... I posted those images, but I must admit I have lost count of which ones were visible, and when. Any specific results you might be interested in, I can send you by e mail...

Ok, so I have reposted above the images originally posted. I used the link you proposed, and I chose the "direct link" option. Crossing my fingers now...

Hi.. Thks, I'll try it...

..Yep, I think I will resort to that if I can't solve that link problem. Do you know if there is a limit for the number of people having access to it? Let me know... Because, for understandable reasons, the field of photo analysis in the JFKA is today considered somewhat irrelevant, I wanted to show in the thread, by displaying some results, that this research is very different from has been done in the past. It is about applying 21st Century tools and method while approaching the record not as photographic sets, but as batch of data. All previous analysis of the record were based on enhancing specific details of an image. Thus, someone would "see" something in an image, and then redraw and/or color it to "revel" his interpretation to the viewer. This is not at all what is done here: full pictures or frames are processed (or large segments), applying known methods of problem solving used to reduce uncertainty/unknowns in finite data sets. As it happens, uncertainty/unknowns in pixel data sets are expressed as blur, i.e. uncertainty about the exact boundaries between groups of pixels of different value. So the process is simply applying well-established tools of data processing to the specific sub group of pixel. When I conceptualized this (1998), and looked for any scientific application (I was quite sure I had merely rediscover something long-known of specialists in the field), I was quite surprised I could not find anything. But a few years later I did... I will conclude this "Decoding Dallas" presentation with a segment about "The Science Behind the Results", where I will show to those interested that the process I propose is not "Voodoo Science" and the results presented not an exercise in pareidolia. On the contrary... Well, let me try to solve that lik problem now. Thanks to all members who are trying to help....

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

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

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

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

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

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