John Dolva Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 It's very interesting Frantz. If one considers the blowback (thats obvious to me. it has some hallmarks of a tangential strike where one can consider such thngs as happens when an object enters a denser medium like this (remembering it's a closed system), fracgmenting and fracturing on a massive scale leaving a typicalish gutter wound that the downhanging mass of gore hair scalp obscures (imo). I'd like to see you continue this. At the moment I'm getting over a couple of weeks of car problems. I don't like working on cars much when it's frosty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 (edited) It's very interesting Frantz. If one considers the blowback (thats obvious to me. it has some hallmarks of a tangential strike where one can consider such thngs as happens when an object enters a denser medium like this (remembering it's a closed system), fracgmenting and fracturing on a massive scale leaving a typicalish gutter wound that the downhanging mass of gore hair scalp obscures (imo). I'd like to see you continue this. At the moment I'm getting over a couple of weeks of car problems. I don't like working on cars much when it's frosty. ......I am posting some more versions of the right lateral autopsy pix.... ...there are 2 autopsy pix that I know of, which might show the area of intererest. I will work on them asap, but I will make the prediction (again...) that the wound, if real, should be visible even tangentially (because bruised tissues will reflect light differently than normal skin...), in at least one of the pictures.... Edited July 7, 2010 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 ....here are two others... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 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… Hi Frantz, Can you supply an uncompressed Charlier version to us? I would enjoy stabilizing it, for all to see. thanks chris chris@3125.us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 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… Hi Frantz, Can you supply an uncompressed Charlier version to us? I would enjoy stabilizing it, for all to see. thanks chris chris@3125.us ..hi Chris... The version I worked with is from a clip I found on Youtube. It is the one, I believe, that comes from a 70's documentary critical of the WC: this segment was about the possibility that the gunman was visible in a classic shooter position somehow high above the retaining wall. This was dismissed long ago as an artefact of course, but that is the reason I guess that they used a rather good (but not exceptional) version of the Nix film, in slow motion. I went back to Youtube after reading your post, because I have just bought a new laptop and I am moving files and could not retrieve the clip I downloaded right now. I have found a version of the same doc sequence, but this one is not as good, and rather pixelised (by the way, I saw some of your work: really good...; I am quite sure that the original clip I downlo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I went back to Youtube after reading your post, because I have just bought a new laptop and I am moving files and could not retrieve the clip I downloaded right now. I have found a version of the same doc sequence, but this one is not as good, and rather pixelised (by the way, I saw some of your work: really good...; I am quite sure that the original clip I downlo Author garotted in mid-post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 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… Hi Frantz, Can you supply an uncompressed Charlier version to us? I would enjoy stabilizing it, for all to see. thanks chris chris@3125.us ..hi Chris... The version I worked with is from a clip I found on Youtube. It is the one, I believe, that comes from a 70's documentary critical of the WC: this segment was about the possibility that the gunman was visible in a classic shooter position somehow high above the retaining wall. This was dismissed long ago as an artefact of course, but that is the reason I guess that they used a rather good (but not exceptional) version of the Nix film, in slow motion. I went back to Youtube after reading your post, because I have just bought a new laptop and I am moving files and could not retrieve the clip I downloaded right now. I have found a version of the same doc sequence, but this one is not as good, and rather pixelised (by the way, I saw some of your work: really good...; I am quite sure that the original clip I downlo Thanks Frantz, Would this be the Nix video segment you are referring to? Labeled as Frantz.flv at: www.denisedavidson.info chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 ...looks like I did smthg wrong when posting (computers are just not for me, I think...) Here is the complete post: …..hi Chris, The version I worked with I obtained from Youtube, from a 70’s documentary arguing that the gunman could be seen behind the retaining wall, in a classic shooter position. Of course this was dismissed long ago as an artifact, but this is I think why they used a rather good (though not exceptional) version of the Nix film. I have just bought a new laptop (I was getting crazy with the typing…) and I am in the process of moving my files, and I have not been able to retrieve the film I used to capture the frames. So I went back to Youtube (by the way, saw some of your work: this is great…) but I have only found one copy, inferior in quality. I am quite sure there are more because I remember choosing this specific version, so I will go back again if I don’t find the clip I downloaded in my files. But what I meant in my post was actually the reverse proposal: if a complete frame-breakdown of the Nix film can be produced (maybe by someone like you, who appears to be quite professional with video editing…) it is possible to obtain a “cleaned up” version of the Nix film, showing the man / men behind the wall, and even behind the fence. Of course, this will mean some serious work (counting an average of 8/10 hours of work per frame –could be less, but I don’t know), but it absolutely can be done. It would be much more rapid if several people worked on it: as I explained repeatedly here, what I am doing is very easily reproducible and does not require expensive software….. Chris, if that is Ok with you, I could send you a complete file of some picture I worked on (your pick): you could maybe put it on video as a diaporama, because I am aware that most people do not understand that the process works very simply, very basically, from mere iteration: you can actually see, with each frame, the information content getting richer and richer, until the final result One last thing: I have been working with those images for almost 8 years now, and I have a very strong impression that some results are quite difficult to explain by classical optics or image processing, because of their precision in details. I had thought, when I started working with the process, that I would be severely limited by the quality of the material I worked with, and only expected that, if anything, I would find at best interesting clues that might warrant the acquisition of closer to the source / better quality material. It does not appear to be the case. Also, I am intrigued that the cameras and films of the day could record such minute details as can be found in the images after processing and major magnification. Since the main difference, between classic optical enhancement (trying to improve what you see with your eyes on a picture, using the classic tools and effects) and the process I use is treating the optical data as “raw data” and seeking only to extract as much pertinent (meaning “resilient” in the concept ) information as possible , I wonder if you have any clue as to what could explain the huge difference in quality of results obtained. The only explanation I could come up with was that it may pertain to some misunderstood or underestimated property of the way photographic support store information. Your views on this much welcome…. I will post results obtained from the top down autopsy picture. They seem to confirm that the process, as incredible as it seems, is able to retrieve original information that has been altered by addition of painted or drawn artifacts, simply because it will have more resilience (laying “deeper” in the data content) than the added forgeries. I'll check the file you indicated and let you know asap. Tks for following this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 I went back to Youtube after reading your post, because I have just bought a new laptop and I am moving files and could not retrieve the clip I downloaded right now. I have found a version of the same doc sequence, but this one is not as good, and rather pixelised (by the way, I saw some of your work: really good...; I am quite sure that the original clip I downlo Author garotted in mid-post? ...sure sounds creepy now that I read it...no, I'm fine, thanks, just my everyday struggle to adapt to the microchip age... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 Chris, if that is Ok with you, I could send you a complete file of some picture I worked on (your pick): you could maybe put it on video as a diaporama, because I am aware that most people do not understand that the process works very simply, very basically, from mere iteration: you can actually see, with each frame, the information content getting richer and richer, until the final result Frantz, Feel free to send me what you feel would be a good introductory photo file/s. Make sure they are labeled in correct successive order. I'll put it together and send it back for feedback from you. chris chris@3125.us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 14, 2010 Share Posted July 14, 2010 (edited) ...yes, Chris, I think that's the one...Your version appears even "cleaner" than the one I worked with, or that may be the new laptop... I thought they also had a slow motion version in the same documentary, but I may be wrong... Tell me how I can send you a file (remember I am not computer friendly....) I work with big files, so each image is in the range of 200/300 ko on the average. In some files, you have several hundreds duplicates....If necessary, I can send you a dvd by mail. I am posting below a composite of the top down autopsy picture, rotated for easier analysis. I think these 2 images bring forth crucial information (I have still not totally "acknowledged" Pix n°2: it actually took me hours to "see" the real information in the image. You'll probably be quicker than me...). First note that the photographer has very carefully centered the picture, using JFK's nose as a marker at an almost perfect right angle in the middle of the frame. With this in mind, notice how: *Pix n°1 shows a noticeable displacement of JFK's right frontal area, as compared to the left. The origin of the displacement appears to be a pattern highly suggestive of an entry wound high in the right front/temporal area, confirming apparently what is seen in the right lateral autopsy pix I posted previously.I don't think that the lighting conditions alone can account for the severe discrepancies in outline seen here between the right and left part of Kennedy's face in this picture. A confirmation of what we see here can maybe found in the following autopsy sheet notes: "fracture through floor", and "vomer (a sinus bone) crushed".... *Pix n°2 seems to confirm the presence of an entry wound,and also seems to indicate that the temporal bone flap may have formed part of the circonference of this wound, thus maybe explaining some of the puzzling contradictions in the head wound descriptions. But of course, the real information in Pix n°2 is that there is not the slightest trace of the notorious "blood-matted hair" we see in the "original" autopsy picture... Moreover, if you examine closely the anatomical left part of JFK's head (right looking at picture) you will notice what can be convincingly interpreted as ragged bone running along the whole temporal area from the back to the front of Kennedy's head. Further to the right, we can see just above the ear (the location where the scalp is usually cut to perform a craniotomy, from what I have read... ) what now looks like some flap of reflected scalp, but did look in the "original" autopsy picture like a flock of hair... It would seem, incredibly, that we are now looking directly into JFK's cranium at his brain, the whole top of his skull having been removed.This of course could be precious indication about when exactly the autopsy pictures in evidence today were taken. I am quite confident (I've left my JFK library in Paris...) there are at least 2 testimonies describing such a peculiar, massive wound encompassing nearly the whole top of Kennedy's skull.... The image would seem to confirm, quite clearly, that this "original" autopsy picture is actually a fake, "hair" having been "added" to hide the exact nature (the location? the size? both?) of JFK's head wounds. This is the second official autopsy picture that could be very convincigly argumented to be a fraud, along with the right lateral autopsy picture. The fact that both show an undocumented frontal entry wound precisely at the same location after processing is, I think, significant I am still a bit uncomfortable with posting results so early in the process (remember I only started on them quite recently, as a derivative...), so I'd like to stress that these, presumably, could still be some incredibly sophisticated optical illusion. I personnally doubt that it is the case, but... I will post two additional composite: *one showing both autopsy pictures together, for crosschecking of the head wound location *one showing both the original and the processed top down picture, to illustrate more vividly the "disappearence" of the hair... Edited July 14, 2010 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Chris, if that is Ok with you, I could send you a complete file of some picture I worked on (your pick): you could maybe put it on video as a diaporama, because I am aware that most people do not understand that the process works very simply, very basically, from mere iteration: you can actually see, with each frame, the information content getting richer and richer, until the final result Frantz, Feel free to send me what you feel would be a good introductory photo file/s. Make sure they are labeled in correct successive order. I'll put it together and send it back for feedback from you. chris chris@3125.us Chris, got your personnal msg... If that's ok, I wish to send you the complete file from my study of one of the Hughes frame, for several reasons: *I noticed you have a clip of this film on your site, and though i have not seen it yet, I assume it is of the same quality as your other works, and should be very useful to verify the results I present, thanks to the availability of numerous reference points *it one of the first files where I understood the importance of working with full frames, to preempt any easy accusations of fraud (yes,I'm quite slow at times...) *the image is crucial because it refutes the basic tenet of the Lone Nut Theory: that Oswald shot JFK that day from the TSBD 6th floor window From this, everything unravels: *why did the official record incriminate, with light-speed certainty, an innocent man? How could Oswald's gun be found on 6th floor if he wasn't even there? How could evidence be collected so fast, and a judgement be made so quickly, and so wrongly, on a man who can be now seen to be innocent? How comes this innocent man came to get assassinated while under the custody of those "mistakenly" accusing him of 2 murders ? *why would Oswald kill Tippit if he did not shoot Kennedy? The fact that the Sniper's Nest shooter is wearing a DPD uniform (my interpretation...), just as the other assassins is also a very big break, I think in advancing this case... That was actually a huge surprise to me. But it makes sense: that is the best cover you can ever get... I'll try to upload the file this week end. If I get trouble I'll be in touch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) Chris, if that is Ok with you, I could send you a complete file of some picture I worked on (your pick): you could maybe put it on video as a diaporama, because I am aware that most people do not understand that the process works very simply, very basically, from mere iteration: you can actually see, with each frame, the information content getting richer and richer, until the final result Frantz, Feel free to send me what you feel would be a good introductory photo file/s. Make sure they are labeled in correct successive order. I'll put it together and send it back for feedback from you. chris chris@3125.us Chris, got your personnal msg... If that's ok, I wish to send you the complete file from my study of one of the Hughes frame, for several reasons: *I noticed you have a clip of this film on your site, and though i have not seen it yet, I assume it is of the same quality as your other works, and should be very useful to verify the results I present, thanks to the availability of numerous reference points *it is one of the first files where I understood the importance of working with full frames, to preempt any easy accusations of fraud (yes,I'm quite slow at times...) *the image is crucial because it refutes the basic tenet of the Lone Nut Theory: that Oswald shot JFK that day from the TSBD 6th floor window It is the first time I am posting this full frame: astute observers may want to analyze the pair of adjacent windows to the left of the Sniper's Nest... From this, everything unravels: *why did the official record incriminate, with light-speed certainty, an innocent man? How could Oswald's gun be found on 6th floor if he wasn't even there? How could evidence be collected so fast, and a judgement be made so quickly, and so wrongly, on a man who can be now seen to be innocent? How comes this innocent man came to get assassinated while under the custody of those "mistakenly" accusing him of 2 murders ? *why would Oswald kill Tippit if he did not shoot Kennedy? The fact that the Sniper's Nest shooter is wearing a DPD uniform (my interpretation...), just as the other assassins is also a very big break, I think in advancing this case... That was actually a huge surprise to me. But it makes sense: that is the best cover you can ever get... I am now of the opinion that there was a strong local / Texan component in the assassination of Kennedy, which doesn't preclude all sorts of alliances with the usual suspects, but is still I think a major advance in the case... I'll try to upload the file this week end. If I get trouble I'll be in touch.... I am posting below a composite of the first and last image of my study of one Hughes film frame. This is the file I will send you... Edited July 16, 2010 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted July 17, 2010 Share Posted July 17, 2010 (edited) Chris, I found the site: is there a way to send a complete folder, or do I have to send files separately? The total size is 224 MO... Ok, I've tried, but I have only be able to upload one frame... lemme know... I am posting below a composite of the 2 processed autopsy pix, showing the right entry wound Edited July 17, 2010 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 (edited) Hi Martin, I see you are looking at the forum and was wondering when you were going to own up to your error regarding LHO's shadow in the BYP? It's been 8 months now! Hi Len. I hope you are well? It seems you have a crush on me, for to me unknown reasons. 8 months now...amazing how fast times past by, isn't it? I wish you further happy counting. When i'am going to search for errors, i found it just on your side. Simple as that. Don't worry, i'll show you that. Martin Nope Martin no crush, you asked me to keep bringing this up, and trust me I will continue to do so until you show that you were correct [which I don't think possible] or admit error [which I don't think you capable of] so this will continue for a very long time. Let's not be desingenuous, you know very well what your error was, you said the sun angle should have been (IIRC) 33.6 degrees. That means you somehow calculated what time the photo was taken to the minute OR you mistakenly believed the angle would have been a constant that day. Edited July 31, 2010 by Len Colby 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