Oswald Picture Not Faked

[Len Colby]

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.

So Martin it's been 7 months and no sign of your "animation", why not just admit you were wrong?

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

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

[John Dolva]

Frantz, I know exactly what you are talking about and I definitely don't offer those suggested as counter arguments.

What I do ask for is a completely unaltered full res full size lossless copy of relevant frame/s so that an attempt at verification can be made.

This is good, it means it's not a matter of believing or disbelieving anyone.

I can see you've pixel resized which shows proper procedure but imo it must be in context, ie full frame/s.

Thank you very much for picking up on this again.

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

Frantz, I know exactly what you are talking about and I definitely don't offer those suggested as counter arguments.

What I do ask for is a completely unaltered full res full size lossless copy of relevant frame/s so that an attempt at verification can be made.

This is good, it means it's not a matter of believing or disbelieving anyone.

I can see you've pixel resized which shows proper procedure but imo it must be in context, ie full frame/s.

Thank you very much for picking up on this again.

...tks to you...still have prblm with typing...will post from workplace

u should have rcvd files by now let me know

I forgot to mention I use Kneson when magnification is required

I thank u for following this & wish more people would take time to really examine this seriously

Cross check is what is needed now of course, so all questions are welcome as explained my files are open

If size OK will post below interesting image of picket fence from Nix film

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

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.

...Mark, I have prepared for you a composite of the right lateral autopsy pix. Do you want me to post it here, or should we start a new thread?

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

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.

...Mark, I have prepared for you a composite of the right lateral autopsy pix. Do you want me to post it here, or should we start a new thread?

...I have managed to upload a picture of myself, as per forum rules.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Frantz

[John Dolva]

Frantz,. I've looked at the relevant frames, as provided, in various ways and I cannot contribute favourably or otherwise to this particular study.

However, I most certainly support your overall approach to research and the comments you have made in this thread with regards to peer review. Keep 'em coming.

Regards, John.

[Terry Adams]

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.

...Mark, I have prepared for you a composite of the right lateral autopsy pix. Do you want me to post it here, or should we start a new thread?

...I have managed to upload a picture of myself, as per forum rules. I only found one where I am with my grand dad: I am the guy in the background...

I do not see Frantz' picture of the autopsy. Did he post it or send it to Mark?

Thanks

Edited June 20, 2010 by Terry Adams

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

Frantz,. I've looked at the relevant frames, as provided, in various ways and I cannot contribute favourably or otherwise to this particular study.

However, I most certainly support your overall approach to research and the comments you have made in this thread with regards to peer review. Keep 'em coming.

Regards, John.

...Tks for looking into it. Did u use the transparency-accretion I explained or some other method?

I'll be interested in looking at the results you obtained, if that's OK.....

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

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.

...Mark, I have prepared for you a composite of the right lateral autopsy pix. Do you want me to post it here, or should we start a new thread?

...I have managed to upload a picture of myself, as per forum rules. I only found one where I am with my grand dad: I am the guy in the background...

I do not see Frantz' picture of the autopsy. Did he post it or send it to Mark?

Thanks

...Hi...

...no, I have not posted the autopsy pix yet: I was waiting for Mark reply, and I did not feel proper for me to start a thread while I was still struggling to comply with forum rules re bio and picture (that is OK now)

Also I work with large files, and the size limit here requires that I delete previous pix to upload new ones.

I can either:

*wait an extra day or two before deleting older pix to upload the autopsy pix

*send u the processed autopsy pix by personal msg so that you can uploaded them on the Forum

Let me know...

Edited June 20, 2010 by Frantz

[John Dolva]

Hi Frantz,

the first thing I did was look at the pixellation structure and the various colour and lumination values. It immediately appeared to me that the information on the primary image does not have the range necessary and that the pixellation appears to show a multi enlargement, reduction. I'm not sure how this occurred. It possibly could be a matter of image transformation through changing the format. So, I cannot go beyond that point.

However, that does not mean anything regarding how you derived tha images in the sense of denying it as a useful technique. So, no I went no further. I've tried to think of other ways but I keep coming up with the matter of the raw material (to me) being insufficient.

I did various edge analysis, histogram equalisations et.c. and combined various derivatives in various ways, but still, the same problem for me.: Insufficient image data.

(I'll search for a representative image, but I'm pretty sure I didn't save any for the reasons above. Failing finding that, I'll redo it and post as attachment.)

b well, John.

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

Hi Frantz,

the first thing I did was look at the pixellation structure and the various colour and lumination values. It immediately appeared to me that the information on the primary image does not have the range necessary and that the pixellation appears to show a multi enlargement, reduction. I'm not sure how this occurred. It possibly could be a matter of image transformation through changing the format. So, I cannot go beyond that point.

However, that does not mean anything regarding how you derived tha images in the sense of denying it as a useful technique. So, no I went no further. I've tried to think of other ways but I keep coming up with the matter of the raw material (to me) being insufficient.

I did various edge analysis, histogram equalisations et.c. and combined various derivatives in various ways, but still, the same problem for me.: Insufficient image data.

(I'll search for a representative image, but I'm pretty sure I didn't save any for the reasons above. Failing finding that, I'll redo it and post as attachment.)

b well, John.

"I did various edge analysis, histogram equalisations et.c. and combined various derivatives in various ways, but still, the same problem for me.: Insufficient image data."

This is exactly the point: the process is precisely about retrieving "weak signals", i.e. "insufficient image data" in optics parlance...

Let me know how you combined your derivatives, if you will...

[John Dolva]

Insufficient data in this case refers to digital information stored as bits (bytes and nibbles etc) .

Nothing more than the data embedded in what is an image on a screen, created by whatever process and then transmitted through a MOdulatorDEModulator, exists. (as weak or otherwise signals). It is possible to change and present that data in order to perhaps highlight something for example but if the raw data isn't there to start with one may create data.

This may have illustrative uses.

The various manipulations I did to see if there was weak data not readily visible included for illustrative purposes a function in a freeware program called ImageAnalyzer (MeeSoft) which has many ways of breaking down and combining, or recombining, images,

In this instance I tried add, subtract, and OR. (These are in the dropdown menus.)

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

Insufficient data in this case refers to digital information stored as bits (bytes and nibbles etc) .

Nothing more than the data embedded in what is an image on a screen, created by whatever process and then transmitted through a MOdulatorDEModulator, exists. (as weak or otherwise signals). It is possible to change and present that data in order to perhaps highlight something for example but if the raw data isn't there to start with one may create data.

This may have illustrative uses.

The various manipulations I did to see if there was weak data not readily visible included for illustrative purposes a function in a freeware program called ImageAnalyzer (MeeSoft) which has many ways of breaking down and combining, or recombining, images,

In this instance I tried add, subtract, and OR. (These are in the dropdown menus.)

I sure would like to try working with such tools….

I thought dupe n°6 that I sent you (first image when the man became visible) would contain enough info so you could exploit it….

Maybe you can try another angle: I’d like to see what you can get working on the images I obtained. If they are artefacts, your tools might be able to demonstrate it…

I will post here results obtained working on the rotated right lateral autopsy picture (Fox/Groden 1 in my file, but it may have a different official nbr) that show an apparent entry wound high on Kennedy's forehead. Comments wellcome.

As you will see, the results are quite stunning…

If it's more proper to start a thread on the autopsy pictures specifically, let me know...

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

Insufficient data in this case refers to digital information stored as bits (bytes and nibbles etc) .

Nothing more than the data embedded in what is an image on a screen, created by whatever process and then transmitted through a MOdulatorDEModulator, exists. (as weak or otherwise signals). It is possible to change and present that data in order to perhaps highlight something for example but if the raw data isn't there to start with one may create data.

This may have illustrative uses.

The various manipulations I did to see if there was weak data not readily visible included for illustrative purposes a function in a freeware program called ImageAnalyzer (MeeSoft) which has many ways of breaking down and combining, or recombining, images,

In this instance I tried add, subtract, and OR. (These are in the dropdown menus.)

I sure would like to try working with such tools….

I thought dupe n°6 that I sent you (first image when the man became visible) would contain enough info so you could exploit it….

Maybe you can try another angle: I’d like to see what you can get working on the images I obtained. If they are artefacts, your tools might be able to demonstrate it…

I will post here results obtained working on the rotated right lateral autopsy picture (Fox/Groden 1 in my file, but it may have a different official nbr) that show an apparent entry wound, surrounded by a roughly circular area of bruised tissues, high on Kennedy's forehead. Comments welcome.

As you will see, the results are quite stunning…

Of course the real information here is that the front wound was observed and recorded in Dallas.Kilduff was not even present in the emergency room at Parkland, and he stated that his source was Dr Burkley, who was there.The probability that Kilduff would indicate purely by chance a location so close to what we see in the picture is astronomical. How did that crucial information about the nature of the president's wounds get lost in transit between Dallas and Bethesda ?

If someone knows how to get in touch with Douglas Home (I am reading his masterful work on the ARRB right now...) this should interest him: the controversial autopsy pictures are in all probability, not a set of photographs taken after reconstruction as he suspects, but mere forgeries...

Also, astute observers may notice that the throat wound is visible on the right picture: keep in mind the Bethesda description ("a large gaping wound.."), compared to the Parkland description ("a thin scalpel cut through a pencil-sized hole...") and decide for yourself which one is more acurate...

If it's more proper to start a thread on the autopsy pictures specifically, let me know...

Edited July 4, 2010 by Christian Frantz Toussay