Len Colby Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 My only advantage compared to you is that I know Kevin personally, have made a dozen or more presentations on 9/11 with him, co-hosted an RBN radio show, "The Dynamic Duo", with him for a year and a half, and have lived through the events you only know from a distance and by interpretation. When it comes to sins of omission, you are an expert. Kevin may have not applied at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for one of these jobs, but he did apply at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater--and it played out exactly as I have described. The problem is neither of you are reliable sources of information so barring some independent confirmation of his account there is no way to be sure what exactly happened. But even you're correct his repeated public calls in 2007 for various people he disagrees with to be executed nullified his claim to free speech martyrdom and gave Whitewater good reason not to hire him. But even putting that aside, I have no idea if they knew about this, you have at best one case of a prof being fired another of one possibly not getting tenure and a third not getting hired because of their views about 9/11. Contrast that to the several hundreds members of Scholars for Truth and similar groups who seem not to have lost their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 FrantzI'm not sure whether you are a prankster or a bit eccentric but your studies look more like mold samples or bad computer art than anything else and are absolutely useless as tools to understanding the assassination. Len Len, I am neither one nor the other. Infra red pictures and films also look very different from usual pix and film, and they nevertheless contain very pertinent information used daily by law agencies, armed forces, etc.... Same goes for X-rays,which don't represent the "reality" of what we see with our own eyes, but do contain very pertinent and useful information. Except that useful X-rays and infra-red images are prepared and interpreted by trained people following a set methodology you on the other hand admit that you amateur playing around with low level consumer software and don't really know what you are doing. "So don't let the appearance of the images bother you, you should concentrate on the information contained within." Therein lies the problem there isn't any useful info "You should, I think, refrain from forming a definitive opinion without having tested the methodology I described" You meaning playing around with DP images beyond recognition until I imagine I've conjured up some useful info,its like an interactive Rorschach test "...or without examining the material I proposed to make available." That's a novel way to dispel criticism, tell your critics to "refrain from forming a definitive opinion" till they've reviewed material you haven't posted yet As explained, I posted on purpose a result obtained on the Moorman pix (Relman Morin version) to show the type of enhancement that can be achieved.The image, showing the back head wound, is not controversial because it shows no possible shooters or accomplices, so you should be able to see very clearly the tremendous information gain derived from the process I use, just by comparing what I posted to your best version of Moorman. Do this, and let me know if you still think the process I described has no value.... I am posting a different crop ,of man n°1 of the Fence team: again, raw results, no retouching. The colors are not manually added... If you look carefully you will notice that the man is wearing glasses, and that you can actually see the part where the temple piece attaches to the glass frame. You will probably also notice the expression on the man's face as JFK's head explodes... That's what I mean when I say that the enhancement obtained is intriguing. Sorry the value of your method seems to existonly in your imagination My friend, I suggest you read more carefully what I posted: *I explained in details the reasoning behind the methodology (basically, that by viewing simulteanously N numbers of different duplicate of the same image processed as transparencies, you would have acces to extra information not visible to the naked eye on the original image), and gave a step by step of the process. What I cannot explain is the scientific mechanism behind it, which is as you may be aware something totally different. *you don't have to be a specialist to get useful infomation information from infra red or x-ray pictures, as you claim: all you have to do is simply adjust your mindset to "acknowledge" the image and then interpret it as a valid source of information (we see with our brain, not our eyes). You've probably seen the footage of the Apache copter shooting Iraqis, and did not have the slightest need of a specialist to interpret them for you... And you don't have to be a doctor get at least 80% of the valuable information from an x-ray * I am not playing around with a computer: I described precisely what I do,i.e generating different duplicates of an image , then viewing them all together at the same time *I explain that I work with big files, that there is apparently a limit to what can be posted here, and I proposed to send material to anyone interested: I don't think you requested anything from me that I am aware of *I already reply to you re the Rorschach line of argument. I have posted a result obtained on the rear headwound from Moorman: I have suggested twice already that, to test the validity of the enhancement process without the encumbrance of controversial images being present or not, you compare this post to yr best version of the same area from the same picture. This is a very simple thing to do, and could demonstate you are right if there is no difference of information content between my image and yours. Let me hear from you....or maybe you could post a composite of the 2 images here... *last point: I do feel your criticism could be explain more urbanely. I used to appreciate this forum precisely for the quality of exchange between people of opposing opinions... ....since this is Xmas, I thought I could do what I usually don't, ie retouching the results so as to make them more visible to the untrained eye. I am posting below a slightly colored, detoured version of the shooter behind the fence. The image used here is actually an excerpt from the Picket Fence team pix I posted previously. I have tried to follow more closely the man's contour. The colors were applied with an opacity ranging from 4% to 17%, depending on the color being used. This means that at least 95% of the details from the original image are still visible, as can be verified by comparing the image with the previous post. Once again, no redrawing of any sort here... It is as if you are looking at the same image, only thru a slightly colored transparencies. The image is indeed quite striking, and should be easier to visualize for almost everbody. I had to delete some previous images: since it seems some people were dlding them, contact me if any inconvenience caused... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 Is it against forum rules for someone named only Frantz to be a member? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 My new comprehensive 3D work shall include a filming animation which will cover rotations of the 3D body with a static sun.Thats for instance is impossible in a real life recreation. You have just a few minutes until the sun turned further and the chance is over. So Martin it been almost 7 weeks, how's progress going on your animation? Perhaps I'm too cynical but I think you now realize you made an error but are too proud to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) Is it against forum rules for someone named only Frantz to be a member?Jack ...Jack, I am sorry about this: I have given my name in a previous post. I have been able to upload a picture of me ( I am the guy on the left, the girl on the right is my younger daughter) but cannot change my name. If someone can help with this, thks... As a matter of fact, we briefly corresponded 5/6 years ago, when I first found the DalTex shooter image. I was not able to convince you, but it was a very valuable experience for me nevertheless, for which I am grateful. I am posting below a composite image that I believe is a good answer to the Rorschach-you're-making this -up line of argumentation. This is, of course, a valid argument, but it should adequately adress the facts as presented. So these are the facts. The picture posted shows: * top left: a crop (background excised) of the Fence Accomplice from Moorman. This is a raw result, with no colour manually added *top right: an example of how I use watercolour to manually enhance the images, if necessary, showing the colours applied do not manipulate the data being observed. I chose the Fence Shooter crop (background excised) because the image is so crisp, showing first the raw result (taken from a previous post), then the watercoloured result. *bottom left: I am posting for the first time on a public forum an image of the Fence Accomplice, extracted from the Zapruder film (Z 472). I have put 2 different magnifications of it to show that the images I have found, contrary to optical illusions, do not vanish when magnified, but do gain more clarity of details. For each of the images, I have excised the background while leaving enough points of reference to demonstrate that the contours I am following are really present in the original picture, and not a figment of my imagination. Now let's go back to the Fence Accomplice: 1) we have now 2 images of the same potential "optical illusion" located in the same area (actually in Z film, the man has moved slightly closer - 5 feet- to the fence corner), taken by 2 different cameras using 2 different films, taken by 2 people located at 2 opposite locations, at 2 different moments. I have not done the math on this, but expectation of such a probability (illusion) should be very, very, very low. Of course, the math should also take into account the presence of 2 optical illusions, different but coherent (same dark clothing, same cap), in close vicinity to each other in Moorman's... 2) Illusion most of the time requires "blank space", areas where the brain can reinterpret data as it sees fit to create the new, illusional image. This not the case, most notably with the Accomplice image from moorman: the image is just full of precise data 3)Though the images are not clear enough for a definitive opinion, astute observers may notice the over all coherence between the facial features of the Accomplice as seen in Moorman and Zapruder: marked chin, rather long jaw, marked cheekbones. More astute observers may also notice the peculiar reflection in the man's right eye (left looking at picture) in Z 472, and compare it to the eyeglass visible at the same spot in Moorman 4)if you look carefully, you will notice that the tip of the man's right ear (left looking at pix) in Moorman, is sensibly pinker / lighter than the rest of the ear. Everybody who is used to taking pictures has probably noticed this phenomenon. Now I would defy anyone to come with any optical illusion that would produce this precision of detail: on the contrary, as explained, optical ilusion requires most of the time a bluriness of details that allows the brain to extrapolate and reinterpret the data. Enjoy this, and let me know... P.S: I have left my library overseas, but I am quite positive that some resarcher stated a journalist told him that he had saw a version of Moorman where the assassin was visible and wearing goggles. If anyone can help.... Edited January 10, 2010 by Frantz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Thanks for your clarification. Keep searching. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Frantz, I'm finding your infra red images fascinating and hope you upload a few more for us to look at. You're bringing a fresh approach to photos everybody's been analysing for years. Make sure you add a photo of yourself as per forum rules so you can keep on contributing. ..hi, Mark, Only found yr post today... Tks for your message. I am sometimes wondering why I keep doing this, trying to tell serious researchers that indeed a major progress in the case is at hand, for those who care to listen... Everybody can reproduce what I have done. Chances are, you might get even better results than I did if you have better original material to start with, or better software. I have been holding this information for almost 10 years now, and trying to make people aware of it has been a very interesting expedition inside the "JFK Community" psychological workings...Would make a good book... Actually, these are not infra-red images, I only used the comparison to show that we daily recognize and use photo data which is totally different from what we see with our own eyes. The process only shows us information in a way we are not used to. It is like instead of having one single witness to a specific event, you could work with the testimonies of hundreds of eye witnesses, each telling what he saw. Putting all these testimonies in perspective will give you a much more complete and detailled account of what took place, than the original single testimony could. Just replace "testimonies" by "transparencies".... I have just posted a composite image in another post which is in fact a good synthesis of what I have found: the hit in Dallas was executed by 3 teams using uniforms, most probably DPD uniforms, and this in my opinion could not have been possible without high level complicity within the DPD. Which in turns may make us a bit intrigued that LHO (who was not in the 6th floor window as one picture I posted previously shows..) was confronted within seconds of the shooting by a policeman with his gun drawn.... Which in turns raise several embarassing questions as to the ultra fast solving of the case by the DPD and the arrest of a man we now Know did not shoot the President.... And of course which cast an ugly light on the death of the innocent man wrongly accused, while in police custody... That's why I think what I found deserve serious attention: beyond the anecdotical interest of seeing for the first time the faces of the assassins, or proving that LHO did not shoot JFK, what the images show is that there was a massive complicity / participation of the DPD in the hit. This is enough to start reevaluating the overall data and see if it sheds any light on the matter. I personnally don't believe in a purely local, Texan conspiracy. So I have to see how it fits all together. Would it be possible to find 12 / 15 policemen, even in Dallas '63, willing to participate in the killing of the President? 15 men would could not only do it, but could be trusted to keep their mouth shut forever after the fact ? You pull this thread, and it all comes loose... Contact me if you need anything, since I'll be deleting attachments to make room for other pictures..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 My new comprehensive 3D work shall include a filming animation which will cover rotations of the 3D body with a static sun.Thats for instance is impossible in a real life recreation. You have just a few minutes until the sun turned further and the chance is over. So Martin it been almost 7 weeks, how's progress going on your animation? Perhaps I'm too cynical but I think you now realize you made an error but are too proud to admit it. It's been over 2 months, how's that video coming along? Don't forget you specifically asked me to keep bumping this question for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 ...I have been quite busy lately, and have not had the time to check if anything was posted that I should reply to. If that’s the case, I will, just bear with me for a few days more… In the mean time, I have got hold of an exploitable copy of the uncropped Nix film, and I propose to test the methodology I have described here to verify that, as I claim: *the process indicated does indeed enhance pictures tremendously *processing of the JFK assassination pictures and films shows that JFK was assassinated by 3 teams of people wearing uniforms, in all probability Dallas Police uniforms As you may know, the uncropped version of the Nix film is known as the Charlier Version, from the respected French journalist who obtained a copy of the original before it was sent to the FBI, and returned heavily cropped just at the level of the retaining wall, in effect hiding the Knoll area. The Charlier Version does include the Knoll area, although totally blackened out so as to make it impenetrable to the human eye. If what I am saying is correct, I should be able to verify in the uncropped Nix film the presence, in the vicinity of the Retaining wall Corner, of at least one “DPD officer” during the shooting. I have already posted here 4 images of this man, extracted from Moorman, Willis, Beltzer, and Zapruder, so I will tend to be reasonably confident that the Nix film will show evidence of at least 1 man wearing a dark blue uniform and military cap, standing in the vicinity of the corner of the retaining wall, and watching the motorcade passing by (it is my interpretation that this man / men serve as a decoy to deflect attention from the fence as a possible assassin’s location). If it does, I think it would constitute a valid and concrete testing of the methodology I propose, and of the results previously presented here, and I hope it will at least stir the interest of some researchers. As I explained, I can supply the complete file for each picture processed. If I can’t find anything of interest (nobody, as far as I know, has worked on the uncropped film: Groden worked on the cropped version showing 1 inch above the wall, so I just don’t know what to expect in terms of quality) I will say so here. I will work on several different frames, so as to eliminate the hypothesis of artefacts. I should be able to post the first results within a week or so… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 So Martin it's been 4 months any word on when you'll release the promised video? Why not admit error and I'll stop bugging you about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 ...I have been quite busy lately, and have not had the time to check if anything was posted that I should reply to. If that’s the case, I will, just bear with me for a few days more…In the mean time, I have got hold of an exploitable copy of the uncropped Nix film, and I propose to test the methodology I have described here to verify that, as I claim: *the process indicated does indeed enhance pictures tremendously *processing of the JFK assassination pictures and films shows that JFK was assassinated by 3 teams of people wearing uniforms, in all probability Dallas Police uniforms As you may know, the uncropped version of the Nix film is known as the Charlier Version, from the respected French journalist who obtained a copy of the original before it was sent to the FBI, and returned heavily cropped just at the level of the retaining wall, in effect hiding the Knoll area. The Charlier Version does include the Knoll area, although totally blackened out so as to make it impenetrable to the human eye. If what I am saying is correct, I should be able to verify in the uncropped Nix film the presence, in the vicinity of the Retaining wall Corner, of at least one “DPD officer” during the shooting. I have already posted here 4 images of this man, extracted from Moorman, Willis, Beltzer, and Zapruder, so I will tend to be reasonably confident that the Nix film will show evidence of at least 1 man wearing a dark blue uniform and military cap, standing in the vicinity of the corner of the retaining wall, and watching the motorcade passing by (it is my interpretation that this man / men serve as a decoy to deflect attention from the fence as a possible assassin’s location). If it does, I think it would constitute a valid and concrete testing of the methodology I propose, and of the results previously presented here, and I hope it will at least stir the interest of some researchers. As I explained, I can supply the complete file for each picture processed. If I can’t find anything of interest (nobody, as far as I know, has worked on the uncropped film: Groden worked on the cropped version showing 1 inch above the wall, so I just don’t know what to expect in terms of quality) I will say so here. I will work on several different frames, so as to eliminate the hypothesis of artefacts. I should be able to post the first results within a week or so… …OK, I am posting below, as promised, the first results obtained from the processing of the uncropped Nix film. As indicated in my previous post, I worked on several different frames to eliminate the optical illusion argument. I worked on 5 frames, though I am only presenting 3 here. All 5 frames results are coherent. Though the results presented can probably be improved, I think they are already sufficiently interesting to be shown here even at this stage. Before you analyze the images, here is some information on how I worked: *I screen-captured 29 frames of the shooting sequence showing the retaining wall and knoll area *since I focused on frames of particular interest (yes, it is actually possible to detect movement, though of an unknown nature, at the extremity of the wall when viewing the film frame by frame, even with the naked eye) they are not evenly spaced in time, and of course do not correspond to the official frame-count (if there is one…) of the Nix film. *I then processed the images as described here several times. As usual, I worked with ArcSoft PhotoStudio, which allows for the easy creation and use of transparencies. As usual, I have kept all the records showing the progression from the original image to the results presented., and they are available to anyone willing to check. In my previous post, I stated that, in all probability, the extremity of the retaining wall corner would reveal the presence of at least one man in uniform. It would appear that I was right in this prediction, as indicated by the composite picture posted below, showing three images of an unknown “DPD officer” just at the extremity of the wall corner during the shooting. Astute observers will probably notice how the movements and postures of the man correspond to someone watching a motorcade (or any moving kind of event) coming at him from the right (frame 12), passing in front of him (frame 20) and speeding away to the left (frame 29) Naturally, I am no psychic: this man can be seen in several pictures of the assassination after processing (some of them have been posted here), so the possibility that he would also be visible in the Nix film was quite high. On the other hand, as some will notice, in science theory the predictive capability of an hypothesis is considered a key factor, so what I am posting below is in fact a strong argument in favour of what I am trying to say here for some time now: *statement n°1: there is a simple, apparently not well known, computer–based process that can enhance pictures tremendously *statement n°2: applied to the JFK photo and film record, it shows that men in DPD uniforms executed the assassination, shooting from the Daltex 2nd floor, the TSBD Snipper’s Nest, and the picket fence corner area parallel to the retaining wall The man seen in the frames below is in all probability BlackDogMan, discovered decades ago in other pictures. My work is only validating the original discoverers, and giving additional (in my view, crucial…) information as to his identity. As a conclusion, I would like to say this: there are lots of other assassination-related pictures to analyze. I am presently working on the autopsy pictures with …interesting results. There is also a very good probability that the uncropped Nix film might show exploitable images of the fence, allowing for confirmation of a two-man assassins team behind the fence near the corner. Anyone could very quickly master the technique described and start producing pertinent data. I assume that anyone working with closer-to-the-source material and/or better software could get markedly improved results than what I can get myself. One last thing: the images below illustrates the random aspect of the process: you never know what an image will exactly look like when you are producing it (though some basic, general rules seem to emerge after some practice) and some results are quite different from what you would expect from classic photo enhancement, as several critics have noted. My only explanation for this is that the process actually is about extracting information from the support, and does not address the least the question of how it will look like in the end. So let me hear your comments to the images I am posting below… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 9, 2010 Share Posted May 9, 2010 An admirable approach, re predictive hypothesis. You're quite right there. A good step to a theory. For independent checking, could you post the Original frames sans any enhancement, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Haley Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 (edited) Frantz, you've come up with a fresh approach there. Fascinating. I'm pleased to see your trying it out on other photographs including the autopsy, and look forward to seeing more. Edited May 10, 2010 by Mark Haley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Fokes Posted May 15, 2010 Share Posted May 15, 2010 (edited) http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.htmlDartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly was not altered. “If we had found evidence of photo tampering, then it would have suggested a broader plot to kill JFK,” said Farid, who is also the director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth. “Those who believe that there was a broader conspiracy can no longer point to this photo as possible evidence.” Farid added that federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was a conspiracy. The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Perception. Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in the Oswald photo analysis. “The human brain, while remarkable in many aspects, also has its weaknesses,” says Farid. “The visual system can be quite inept at making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows.” At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of Oswald’s head and portions of the backyard scene, from which he was able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain all of the shadows in the photo. “It is highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect forgery with the technology available in 1963,” said Farid. With no evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was authentic. ”As our digital forensic tools become more sophisticated, we increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an attempt to resolve some long-standing mysteries,” said Farid. I'm not sure if anyone has posted the PDF of this study. It is now available here: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/reports/TR2010-669.pdf Regards Peter Fokes, Toronto Edited May 15, 2010 by Peter Fokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted June 10, 2010 Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) An admirable approach, re predictive hypothesis. You're quite right there. A good step to a theory. For independent checking, could you post the Original frames sans any enhancement, please? John & Mark ...sorry I only found yr posts today. I will post the original screencaptures. Give me a few days, I have computer prblm (typing txt takes hours) Tks for following this I am posting below a post I had prepared before my PC got prblm: ….I think I should as well post a composite of the 5 Nix frames I worked upon, since I believe they give a better comprehension of the man’s movements. I have inverted frame 22 and 26, since I think I probably misnumbered them during capture. I believe this composite closes definitely the optical illusion argument. This shows that it is technically possible to produce a cleaned up version of the Nix film, showing what goes on on the knoll during the shooting, including the fence / parking lot area. Basically, what I am saying is simply that the state of the art 60s technology used to alter the photographic and film record of the assassination is no match for 21st century mass market PC software, when correctly applied. Though I have not posted all the images I have found (for instance, Weaver frame shows a DPD officer moving boxes in the Sniper’s nest, and the lateral autopsy pix shows a bullet hole high on the right forehead) I think I have posted enough to illustrate my point. Two counter arguments can be offered to rebut my claim that, based on the photographic and film record after processing, the shooting was executed by men in DPD uniforms: *these are optical illusions or artefacts: the mere fact that several of those individuals can be seen in pictures or films taken from different point of view at different times negate this. Also, the fact they all wear uniforms is notable. In the case of the Nix film, specifically, the man can actually be seen in motion, quite a feat for any optical illusion *I am faking this: I am not. I assume it is relatively easy to verify if pictures have been tampered with, and I keep my files open to anyone. Also, what I have done is reproducible quite easily Edited June 12, 2010 by Frantz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now