Hughes Frame as the limo turns on to Elm

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

[Dean Hagerman]

I can see the outline of a human shape

As far as a familar face can you expand on that Duncan

[John Dolva]

That seems to me to be very few pixels with a lot of software interpolation. What does a pixel resized portion look like? (of the original photo)

[John Dolva]

Duncan, Im not trying to mess with your study. I mean my question for good reasons. There are abstracts and publication in research in the field of face recognition. In a study it was shown that of a range of world famous faces, about 20 pixel (or something like that (it might have been twenty by 15 or osmething like that, so don't quote me on it I'm remembering a thirty + year old study that I haven't read since then)) were needed to provide enough data for most people to correctly identify the face from a distance. Therefore unsmoothed etc enhancements need to be checked for pixellation of the original. It just looks to me that we're not looking at enough pixels.

edit

Edited April 3, 2010 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Ok, great, so it can be worked out to come extent. I don't kmow what was done in creating the youtube vid, so can't comment there. While looking at it have you noted roughly how many pixels go to form the still crop?

edit add: for example I can't see any bricks.

Edited April 3, 2010 by John Dolva

[David Williams]

Yes Duncan i can see what looks like two figures in them windows, if thats the case...........two people up there means a conspiracy doesnt it

[Josiah Thompson]

Duncan, this was discussed on pages 246 through 249 of Six Seconds. I compared the Weaver photo with some frames from Hughes and came to pretty much your conclusion. Will you take a look at it and let me know what you think? Thanks.

Josiah Thompson

[Don Jeffries]

So you think Oswald was in that window, Duncan? And you agree, Josiah? I apologize if I'm misunderstanding what either of you said, but that's what I'm interpreting from your comments.

Unfortunately, the Hughes film didn't capture enough detail to make any conclusive statement about who is in that window. It looks like there are two figures there, but it's kind of like looking at a Rohrschach test when you blow it up like that.

Regardless, I think it was established a long time ago that Oswald wasn't in that window.

[John Dolva]

Ok, great, so it can be worked out to come extent. I don't kmow what was done in creating the youtube vid, so can't comment there. While looking at it have you noted roughly how many pixels go to form the still crop?

edit add: for example I can't see any bricks.

I can't remember the original resolution.

I increased the original resolution to a huge 5000 DPI and then reduced the size of the image before any enhancement, saving in PNG format.

This is the 5000 DPI image I worked with. As you can see, it is very small.

Yes, Duncan, I thought that's what you had done, I've done that increase/decrease too and found that it introduces necessarily artefacts. The person who made the video would have done something as well. I wonder what a pixel resize of the original frame or the best available would show

[Thomas Graves]

I can see the outline of a human shape

As far as a familar face can you expand on that Duncan

Sorry Dean, I can't expand on it. I just see a face like you do, and wondered if anyone thought it looked like Oswald.

I also noticed this.

_________________________________________________

Duncan,

In order to not be influenced by other member's opinions, I refrained from scrolling down the page until, upon looking at your post #1 bottom photo for about a minute, lo-and- behold a man's face "came" to me. He's just to the left of center and he's in the upper half and most of his hairline is cut off by the window. He's looking both to his right and down just a bit. Given his narrow face and his pointed chin and his partially-visible hairline and his prominent eyebrows, my impression is that he resembles LHO. Maybe a LHO lookalike was stationed there?

--Thomas

Edited April 4, 2010 by Thomas Graves

[Mike Williams]

Duncan, this was discussed on pages 246 through 249 of Six Seconds. I compared the Weaver photo with some frames from Hughes and came to pretty much your conclusion. Will you take a look at it and let me know what you think? Thanks.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Believe it or not, I have never read Six Seconds, only exerpts which other researchers have pointed me to, so I was unaware of your study when doing my study.

It's extremely interesting that we both come to the same conclusion independantly, so many years apart, and with me having no knowledge of your study.

I will now try to get the book. In the meantime, do you know of any source online where I can go to view pages 246 through 249 ?

Thomas,

I'm glad that you can see what I see, and have the guts to say that you see the face of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I suspect that many CT's on this forum and elsewhere, although seeing what you and I see, will not publicly say so.

I find it amazing that the Hughes frame shows the face of Oswald, imo. It could of course be the old Rohrschach test playing tricks, but as I discussed with another researcher privately, What would be the odds of Pixelation creating the face of Oswald at that location? Billions to one was the agreed conclusion.

Don,

Of course I think it was Oswald. That however, does not mean that I am not open to the idea conspiracy.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

I appreciate the "another researcher privately", however, I wanted it known that I am that researcher. I agree 100% with Duncan on this. I do believe it looks amazingly like LHO, and find that the odds of pixelation creating the face as remarkably high. I am interested to see how this developes further as more people view it and comment as well as any additional work that could be done with this picture.

Best to all and Happy Easter

Mike

[Bernice Moore]

DUNCAN THANKS FOR YOUR WORK, I SEE AN OUTLINE OF A FIGURE, BUT NO DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AT ALL, NOT EVEN WHEN I GET RIGHT UP TO THE EXPOSURE...SORRY...I AM OF NO HELP IN THat regard...but where is the SAID rifle protruding...?? thanks... excuse darn caps again txs...all have a great easter sunday...best b

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

DUNCAN THANKS FOR YOUR WORK, I SEE AN OUTLINE OF A FIGURE, BUT NO DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AT ALL, NOT EVEN WHEN I GET RIGHT UP TO THE EXPOSURE...SORRY...I AM OF NO HELP IN THat regard...but where is the SAID rifle protruding...?? thanks... excuse darn caps again txs...all have a great easter sunday...best b

Hi Bernice,

This was 5 seconds before the first shot.

In discussions with Mike Williams, and I trust his judgement and personal experience with firearms, it would have been very easy to move positions and fire from the corner location within 5 seconds. His rifle would have been all set to fire.

Also to be considered is the fact that IF the first shot missed, and I say only IF, then perhaps the 5 second rush was the reason why it missed.

Just speculating, but it seems like an extremely reasonable hypothesis to me.

Duncan

THANKS DUNCAN, BUT 5 SECONDS BEFORE SHOULD NOT THE RIFLE BE SEEN PROTRUDING IF SO...TA B

[Robin Unger]

Hughes Frame:

[Robin Unger]

Weaver Crop