Christian Toussay

..Which one? I was advised the "Debunking the pareidolia argument" were down, so I reposted them....

...Hmmm Hmmm... I will try to repost the links asap. (done) I essentially found undocumented DPD staff in the pictures and movies. I know of : - a young Black couple behind the wall - two men at the bottom of the stairs on the knoll - one man sitting on the fire staircase in the DalTex, just above the shooter

OK, so I posted a distinct thread to rebuke the argument of pareidolia, which is essentially the argument which is/will be brought forth by critics of the results I am presenting here. Refer to this specific thread to understand why the argument simply just do not stand. Continuing our tour of the known/suspected shooting locations in Dealey Plaza, I will post now results obtained on two films showing the Sniper's Nest respectively 10 mns (Bronson film) and 5/10 seconds (Hughes film) before the shooting. The Hughes frames were downloaded from the JFK Lancer site circa 2015, and the Bronson frames were obtained via screen capture of a YouTube video circa 2018. Everybody here knows, I guess, that the foundation of both the WC and HSCA is that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK from the so called Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The HSCA did concede that he had help from another shooter on the Knoll, but happily enough, he missed the target so basically that doesn't count... I guess all JFK researchers, whatever their inclination, have their own scenario for Oswald: so I guess the image posted below, which is a summary of the results obtained on the Sniper's Nest, will not sit well with everybody. The post is a composite, showing frame 2 from the Bronson film and frame 2 of the Hughes film: Note that Hughes frame n°2 still presents remnants of the forgery process used to hide this image: note solid dark areas on the right, notably occulting top right part of cap. The whitish/pinkish blob in the center of the image in what would be the hands area is also very suspicious. This presentation is not about interpretations, but about new data brought forth by a new methodology. Nevertheless, this image not only buries the Lone Nut Theory, but allows us to "re-read" the data in a way that allows answers for old questions and mysteries, if logical thinking is put to use. I will give one single example: - Oswald was not in the Sniper's Nest and did not shoot at Kennedy - so Oswald could not have been present on the 6th floor either, as some suspect: if he had been, he would have been killed on the spot by this DPD officer. Case closed I will post different versions of results obtained of the Bronson and Hughes film for analysis by serious researchers...

....My mistake. I posted an incomplete statement. This was meant to be a question, along the following line: - can the object over Kellerman's face be part of the sun visor, jerked by the shot that hit the chrome shield?

...I did not decide it. This is a segment of the picket fence corner area from Moorman. We know where the fence is because we can see it in the original. As for the detouring, you will notice it is done taking great care not to alter in any way the image presented for analysis. I think the image of those two men is clearly visible, even without the detouring. To discard this away as an optical illusion, you need to explain : - the level of details, as shown in the enlargements posted in the Pt2 thread, including goggles for the shooter and eyewear for the accomplice - the corroboration of the presence of these two men in a different source, i.e the Nix film, the goggles being a notable detail That's quite a solid number of odds against that proposition....

.. I hear you. The IA generated image of a bunch of Kennedys autopsying JFK is a good summary of what we don't need. I was thinking more of what can be gained in term of overall analysis of the mountain of data, like identifying links or connections between individuals, organizations and specific events, all things that can be done today with classic computer but could be done, faster, better and easier. For the fun of it though, I think it would be interesting to provide an AI with the facts of the assassination and ask for its conclusion. It would be better done if the equation is split into factors (Foreign and domestic situation in 1960; JFK's fight with Military and Intelligence apparatus; opposition to Social and economic/business reforms; WC conclusions and evidence vs critics) so the AI (which supposedly is a self teaching agent) can build its knowledge of the case gradually...

...Thks for your reply. I will post a thread of the Decoding Dallas presentation, focusing on the head wounds. If you check it, you will see why I am most interested.

...I totally agree with what Tom Gram wrote: AI could be a very efficient tool in a case where the morass of details and disinformation is the main obstacle for the truth. A powerful, AI assisted search engine would be a massive improvement...

..If you are talking about the two detoured images posted above, there are no surroundings: these are extreme close ups of those two men, with background excised...

...I think I would address, preemptively, the argument of pareidolia, which will be the major argument of critics of what I am trying to present here. Pareidolia is a known phenomenon, which will induce the human brain to retrieve fictitious images from a random data set, if it tries hard enough. So you can get a pareidolia experience by looking at clouds, stains on a wall, toasted buns, city maps or even a birth mark. Pareidolia was actually used by ancient astronomers to map the sky: "Hey, see that groups of stars that looks like a big bear? Lets' call it Ursa Major..." So pareidolia is a fact. Now that doesn't mean that it can be used at will to debunk or refute any observation you don't agree with. First, let us state that pareidolia is valid in a one-set system only, i.e. a system with only one image source. If you have only one image, and nothing more, the pareidolia /optical artefact argument can be justifiably raised (I am talking here of people of good faith...). But if you have several sources, for example images captured from different instruments, from different angles, and at slightly different times (so making it a multiple-set system...), the pareidolia argument just cannot stand. There is no optical illusion known to man capable of manifesting coherently along a time line and/or when seen from different perspectives. Not one. A good example of such pareidolia is the infamous "shooter in a white shirt behind the wall" from the Nix film, which had researchers quite excited in the 70's, until they realized that this apparently credible image did not move a iota during the shooting, and was still visible in the exact same pose when the limousine had long disappeared. In this specific case, the time-lime analysis proved that this was simply an optical artefact. So how a potential image evolves along time is a solid indicator whether the image is objectively real, or fictitious. The other crucial tool to detect eventual pareidolia is, as stated, the variations in angle of sight / point of view of the area under study. For this, of course, you have to be in a multiple-set system, i.e. a system containing several source sets showing the same area with different points of view. A good, recent example of how this approach can be put to use efficiently, is the "Face On Mars" controversy: let me explain To make it short, some scientists analyzing pictures from the Mars Surveyor mission in the 90's noticed a peculiar geological formation, which could be interpreted as an artificial structure, resembling a gigantic human head. To resolve the growing controversy (remember, the guys promoting this hypothesis were not drug-crazy outcasts, but astronomers and NASA contractors..), NASA decided to take another set of pictures from the same area during a following mission. The pictures, taken at a lower angle and with different light conditions, established that the artefact, though peculiar, was indeed natural and did not really resemble a human head when seen closely. So in this case, the variation in point of view was the crucial tool to classify the image as indeed an optical artefact, and debunk the theory. So what I will do now is use those two specific tools (evolution through time AND variations of point of view) to establish that the results I present cannot be considered pareidolia: - I am posting below three different images of DPD n°3, crouching behind the wall, taken at different times from different points of view ( and using of course different equipment). Nota: this man is not to be confused with Man n°3 in the Nix film, standing on an elevation behind the fence. He is part of the decoy team which was deployed behind the wall. The presence of this team of "DPD officers", and their suppression, is the explanations for the "BlackDogMan" artefacts found in some pictures of the assassination. - All three images display high internal coherence, despite the variables (time/point of view/equipment) and show the same thing: a man in dark blue uniform - Moreover, corroborating details can be found in all three pictures: note for instance the tilted shoulder on the left seen in Betzner and Nix, the man holding an object close to his chest/face in Nix and Willis, and the Coke bottle in Nix and Willis. So you have what could be called " a translation of corroborative elements" between three different source sets (images), actually linking image 1 (Betzner) to image 2 (Nix) and on to image 3 (Willis). Now I am not a statistician, but I would be much interested in the probability of this being any kind of optical illusion: the odds should be significantly higher than winning the State Lottery two times in a row.... But there is, actually, a third tool that is quite effective to sort out pareidolia from objective data: enlargement. As a fact, enlargement is the Nemesis of optical illusions / pareidolia: just like in the case of the "Jesus on a Toast" image, enlargement will destroy rapidly brain-constructed images, which relies on blur and lack of details to play their trick. So I am posting below an extreme enlargement of Man n°1 from Moorman (the accomplice), to confirm that enlargement does not make this image less credible, on the contrary: I am adding below another results from Willis 5, where the Coke bottle may be more visible to those who missed it...: Let me be precise here about the image source: - the Betzner image is a new discovery, retrieved from the classic Betzner BlackDogMan picture. The man is actually visible (when you know where to look) in the original and it is quite perplexing that this image has not been discovered before - the Nix image is also a new discovery, and for good reason: the suppression of the image of this man is the reason why the wall perspective in the Nix film is so weird. This image will be analyzed more in details in the presentation dedicated to the techniques used by the forgers - the Willis image is an enhancement of the Willis 5 BlackDogMan artefact. It will also be used in the "Forgery Process" chapter of this presentation

...Thanks for the tip. I have found out how to post more images so I will resume my presentation today if possible. As for the event, I am not living in the US, unfortunately. But let me add this: - If you do participate in this event, I am hereby authorizing you to mention what I am presenting here, and use material I have posted on the Forum if needed. - I can supply you with material not yet posted here, pertaining to other shooters, JFK's head wounds, the forgery method employed by the forgers, or even the solution to such "mysteries" as the Dillard / Powell box arrangement discrepancy - I can supply you with a small technical brief about how I am obtaining the results I am presenting There is a famous saying in Science that states new ideas/concept take time to be recognized as valid, because the Old Guard of scientists will have to die before the new paradigm is accepted. I think it is time that 21st century technology is applied to the JFK case....

..That's not a bad movie, I am myself a fan 50s SciFi / Horror.... I will reply to any serious question/query about the results I am presenting, or the methodology I use. That said, if you see only blobs in the two images posted here just above, I am afraid there is not much I can do for you... More seriously, I will start today a specific thread addressing the pareidolia / optical illusion argument, to demonstrate that this cannot be the case with the results I am presenting here.

...No problem. How about the two images posted above? I have taken the trouble to detoure them so they could be more palatable to the human eye....

Hi... Thanks: I found the tip already and I think I'll be able to resume by today... Thanks for takin the time to answer my query...

...I've found the post about how to post here a large number of files. Since it requires knowledge I don't possess, I will need a few days to go back to my "Decoding Dallas" presentation. I told you I am not of the PC generation... Meanwhile, I'd like to raise what I think is an interesting issue. To make it short, with the notable exception of the LNters, serious researchers have coalesced around two hypothesis: - JFK was done in by a conspiracy hatched by a combination of hostile groups (choose your pick), who took advantage of "hidden skeletons" in the closet of secret Intelligence shenanigans (the CIA/Mafia deal) to get away with it and somehow coerce the Establishment to hide the truth - The removal of JFK was a State sanctioned removal by the Federal Government of a man deemed a National Security Threat My personal research establishes that the shooting in Dealey was not some James Bond/Mission Impossible daring stunt by some disaffected powerful interests. There were about a dozen people on the Knoll participating in the assassination, most of them wearing Dallas Police uniforms, and half of them behind the fence. That's quite a number: you have to move them in before, and out after, all this under the supposedly watchful eyes of Dallas law enforcement officers. Indeed, the use of uniforms may help, but what about the testimony of the DPD officer stationed on the overpass, with a direct view of the parking lot and the fence ? His statements to the WC are quite interesting... So I favor the second hypothesis. And I'd like to ask members this question: what was the case presented by the hardcore conspirators to convince the Federal Agencies that JFK had to be killed ? I would presume that all the individuals who made the final decision to go ahead with the plan (just as reminder; the plan means 1- bringing JFK to Dallas 2- identifying the most suitable kill zone 3- planting a credible patsy there -4 authorizing a motorcade route breaking several crucial security rules to bring the motorcade to the kill zone 5- reducing and displacing the motorcycle escort of the President 6- no physical protection whatsoever of the President by the Secret Service during the shooting 7- illegally high jacking the body before a lawful autopsy has been done 8- delivering the body to Military Authorities) were not all Fascists, Cold Warriors, Bigots or Billionaires. I would believe that the core conspirators, those who wanted this done in the first place, must have "made a case" that conviced the other players at the Federal Government level to aquiesce that the killing of JFK was the only solution. Now what would that case be? I am not sure that even severe political disagreements with the President's policies would convince the Federal Establishment that they have to subvert the democratic process by killing a sitting President. Just an additional thought: I have an habit of running parallel trains of thought when tackling a problem, and I was wondering whether any study/research has been done on the eventual connections/similarities/coincidences between the JFKA and the Profumo Affair? Thks in advance anyway for your comments and feedback...

... I suggest you check the results from Moorman I just posted in thread "Pt. 2". There is a detoured (background excised) and even a water-colored results, which as a rule I never do, preferring to present raw results and let the viewer make his/her own assessment...

... I have posted in the "Pt. 2" thread results from Moorman which should be easier on the eye...

No apologies needed: photo analysis is not as easy as it sounds. May I suggest you check the results on Moorman posted in the "Pt. 2" thread, and comment ?

..I hear you: I think the detoured images posted in the "Pt. 2" thread shall be more evident for you...

..Hi... Well, that is what I intended, but there appear to have a global size limit for member posting images, as I understand it, so I don't know... If it can't be done here, let me know if you have any idea where I could do it. I have some health issues, and I just want serious researchers to know that most major, still pending issues on this case can now be resolved, while I am still able to do it.

...I thought the size limit would be reinstated as before (3 MB) with the new thread, but that is not the case. There is not enough room for me to present the results as I imagined. If somebody know how this can solved, let me know. In the meantime I will use less and smaller files. I suggest you refer to precedent thread when comparative analysis of images is required... So I concluded the preceding thread by showing the fence team as captured in Moorman; Man n°1 and 2 are clearly visible, but Man n°3 not so much. I wanted to repost that first image from Moorman here but I will not because of the size limitations. Man n°3 is actually visible in Moorman, but the files are just too big for this thread. So I post below a detoured version of that image, showing Man n°1 (the accomplice, on the left) and Man n°2 (the shooter, on the right). Please note high coherence between this image from Moorman and the result obtained on Nix 27 posted in the preceding thread: both images show two men close together, in dark clothing behind the fence, about 8/10 feet from the corner, with Man n°2 sporting large goggle-type eye wear... Here is a detoured version of Man n°1. Please note following details - the colors on the man's face were not manually added, but are a by-product of the process - the image appears to have been altered: notice large, white "priest collar" and weird shape of cap visor - the image is crisp enough to reveal that the man is wearing glasses: notice that the part where the temple attach to the eyeglass is, quite incredibly, visible - if you enlarge this image, you will notice that the outer lobe of the man' left hear (looking at the picture) has a pinkier shade than the rest of the ear. People used to taking portraits in outdoors settings will recognize this phenomenon - there is a visible smile/smirk of contentment on the man's face as he watches JFK's head exploding I am posting now a detoured version of Man n°2: - Note large, dark lenses goggles - Also note traces of forgery on the man's hands area - I am not too familiar with weapons and shooting but the man would appear to me to be left handed (pulling the trigger with his left hand) Below is a water-coloured version of same. The colors applied do not modify the data content: anything visible in the detoured version can be found in the coloured version: So I would hope that people who could not see these two images in the preceding thread, nor the fence team in Nix 27, can now have a better assessment. I hope I will be able to resolve this file size problem: I have four more presentations I'd like to make: - The Men in the Sniper's Nest - The Daltex Team - JFK's Head Wounds - How They Fooled US: an analysis of the forgery of the JFKA film and photographic record P.S: Let me answer, before the question is asked: this man is not the notorious "BadgeMan" that some researchers had tentatively identified in the past. He is in a different location. The "BadgeMan" image is actually a by-product of forgery applied to the Moorman picture, to hide the presence of a man, also in DPD uniform, standing at the extremity of the wall. I will present images of this man, and others behind the wall, in a specific thread on the methods used by the forgers to hide the truth from us...

..realize I misread your post: you were talking about man n°3. The goggles are much apparent on Man n°2, but I suspect Man n°3 in the background is also wearing eyewear, because of light distribution discrepancy on his face. I would assume these are normal glasses, as opposed to man n°2's gear. Thing is, I decided not to mention it (1- because I have not verified it yet, and 2- I am already busy with the rest of the image content...). If you have noticed that on Man n°3, you probably have some pretty good visual skills....

..Hi to all.. I am sorry I was not aware of a size limit per thread to post images. I will continue presenting the fence team images from Moorman in another thread titled "Decoding Dallas: Fence Team Pt2"... I understand that people may have difficulty visualizing some of the images: the point is I actually refuse to manually "enhance" the results, like many alleged researchers love to do. This may require a bit of efforts or good visual skills from the viewer. I believe this is a more honest approach than trying to "sell" your own interpretation. But I will make an exception here (on the next thread) and show you enhanced (actually, detoured in one case and watercoloured in the other) results showing Man n°1 & n°2 in Moorman. I believe posters here that can't see anything will then be satisfied. I think people have a right to be skeptical about any research dealing with photographic research, and I know the Rorschach argument by heart. That is why I essentially work with movies (where corroboration, or the case may be, refutation, can be easily done by analyzing adjacent frames) or on data which can be crosschecked with other data (like pictures taken at slightly different times, from different angles, but showing the same area: that is the case for the Grassy Knoll...). So when a coherent pattern can be found, either in successive frames of a movie, or in different pictures taken from different angles, you are starting to have a point worthy of investigation. As an aside, I remember that mud tracks were found on a car bumper behind the fence. Maybe someone could verify if Man n°3 position correlates with this discovery ? So, really sorry about this change of thread, but I'll start the next one in a few hours...

...Yes, that is what they look like, but that is light reflecting off the lenses they make them look so big. And the man is not wearing an Afro: that is the police hat that gives this appearance...

In the following iterations, I have removed part of the background to make Man n°3 more visible: OOps. I have apparently exceeded the limit for posting images. I will come back here tomorrow to finish this...