Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) I don't think it's necessary to see the actual gif. I think the process helps me understand some of what you're talking about. I still think that there is a finite amount of information in the base images you use but when you resize them in whatever way the algorithm that performs the resizing creates a predictable set of new data that when zoomed in on appear to show things that simply cannot be said to be there. (IMO) ...that is why I suggested that there might be a way to verify this very specific point, by checking the data gain between evolving versions (which would appear to manifest very major, credible information increase, like Bond 4) and the original, factored in with the number of iterations...... ) Edited December 2, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Okay Franz... I went back into the thread to find your Bond 4 work... and when scaled so your STAR is the same size we see the scaling and images are not even close..... Now something that does not even DAWN on us here... BOND 4 was taken well AFTER the shots..... The THING you are enhancing is probably the man who ran up the steps after the shots were fired and is on or near the bench that's there ...I would seem to me that the images are not actually well aligned in your overlay, if we use the wall contour and picket fence line as reference points... What I thought you would do is an overlay showing in close up the evolution in data content between the different image, slowly enough that various reference points could be taken, and then verified. The yellow star were added for posting the image here, and were each individually placed. Though I did my best, they are not to be taken as a standard reference point for measuring. I thought it would be easier to just surimpose the images one on top of the others... "Now something that does not even DAWN on us here... BOND 4 was taken well AFTER the shots..... ...well, it sure dawned on me. The caption in the Belnzer / Bond 4 Composite I posted here reads "Black Dog Man right before and right after the shooting". "The THING you are enhancing is probably the man who ran up the steps after the shots were fired and is on or near the bench that's there" ...this is a different line of argument, of course, which now takes us on differnt grounds. Very interesting. Now you are implying that the process could actually work, and thus bring to us new information previously unavailable, but there is a misinterpretation as to who the man is. You are saying this could b a man in civilian clothing, seen in some frames turning abruptly around and running up the stairs on the knoll, in the direction of the wall / picket fence area. As far as as extrapolations are allowed to me by the process, I surely will never contest your proposition: yes, of course, it could be. That's an extraploation based, like all extrapolations (mine included) on a finite set of available data: from this, you make postulations that (in a logical thought process) will put into coherence all the known undisputed data at hand: *there was a man near that area *he is seen climbing the stairs in a hurry *a man can be seen in Bond 4, further up on the knoll in an area that the running man could be postulated / argued to be able to be given the known parameters *the man in Bond 4 could be this man, who for some reason had stopped running and crouched behind the wall The 3 first points are your solid data (point 3, though is less solid though, because it already incorporate extrapolation). The 4 point is your interpolation of the 3 sets, out of which come your "reading" of what you are trying to analyze. This is actually what I am doing with the process. As I explained, in the process, if all extrapolations have "value" (like yours, because it rests initially on real data) it doesn't mean that they are "valid, ie 100% true. The process help here is that it will helps you distinguish between extrapolations that would have more "value" than others, by correlating them. Let's take your extrapolation above, and see how it passes the correlation test for exemple. The counter argument to your proposition would be, I think, the following: - the man can be seen in numerous pictures (Belzner 1 and 2 , Willis 5 and 6, to name only the officially documented ones)) at that same locations before the shooting started thus at a time the bystander is still present on the stairs below -the man wear significantly similar clothing :dark/ blue, cap, hinting to a uniform, not civilian clothing (note that the man on the stairs is hatless...) and ethnic caracters (caucasian) The main counter argument here to your proposal would be the first,of course, and we will agree that's a rather solid one A good extrapolation, based on interpolation of valid data, but destroyed by simply correlating it with more, additionnal data, showing that despite its elegance (accounting for known facts), it is not valid. Additionnal correlations show the weak spot of the extrapolation. there) Edited December 2, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) "Please explain how the image you CREATED within Bond 4, well after whoever was there in Betzner and Willis left, and come to the conclusion we are seeing anything of value?" I don't see the logic between the different propositions: you seem to imply it is not possible to usefully exploit a time-stamped record (a photo for exemple) simply because the reality it has captured will not be identically preserved thru time. We constantly do this, however, in our daily life. It is like saying you cannot extract usefull information about a particular person looking at a picture of him at the age of 20, because he is now 55, or extract pertinent data from a 5 year old research report. That doesn't change the absolute value of data content initially recorded (it's relative value will vary thru time, but that's another point). I may have got you wrong here, though... What "Here is Bond 4... 2 of 3 men are sitting on the steps, the third ran up the steps... I took your little area of enlargement/enhancement and played with it and was able to fairly easily make a comparison to your 273rd iteration. Your process destroys the detail ABOVE the fenceline and simple takes what is there and tweaks it until you like it... The insert I CREATED does not reveal anything NEW, but simply ALTERS the pixels..." ...I agree I don't see much either, but that may be because I don't understand what you are trying to illustrate. I think that just the classic same scale overlay would be interesting ... I don't understand the part about the man on the stairs with the face in Bond 4, and what can be gained in layering the 2 images, which do not share identical data... I replied in another post explaining why it is just impossible that he is the man seen is Belzner. Not improbable, but impossible. And he is not needed here anyway: the subject is the image behind the wall in Bond 4, I would think... I am not sure whether your point is that the image is impossible, or that it is true but that you have different explanation for it, or both "I can see how the enlargment product you use is helpful in creating a better ALTERED ORIGINAL so I tell you waht... PROVE IT WORKS... show us the expression of the man on the higher step... he obviously has a mouth, nose, ears, eyes, etc... Show us how you can make this person LOOK like a person as opposed to making tricks of light and shadow APPEAR to be a person...." Thank you Franz... and please... just the short answer - I do not need a lecture on how I think, or how human beings behave... stick to the process and show us how it works on images we KNOW are there.... Peace DJ " ...I don't think there just any other way of doing this, than not trying to explain in as much simple terms as possible, with different analogies, what I cannot explain in scientific language. That's repetetitive and windy probably, but if I were in the reverse position (yours) I would request such: OK, you don't speak "hard science", I get that. But I want to understand exactly the logical process behind your reasoning". I'll keep it short, anyway, since the basic arguments have been explained, and the counter arguments aptly levelled on all the pertinent angles (operational process, subjectivity standard in selecting files).... "PROVE IT WORKS... show us the expression of the man on the higher step... he obviously has a mouth, nose, ears, eyes, etc... Show us how you can make this person LOOK like a person as opposed to making tricks of light and shadow APPEAR to be a person...." ...if you think you have a good source material of that image, I think we could try to work something under some sort of controlled protocol to see if we can go from there and make some progress... Edited December 2, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) ...so I think now , I will just post results obtained by processing some known areas of interest to searchers along all those years. I will post extreme enlargements of the best different results for each, with composites showing different scales of same or correlations from other sources, or both. You may request any additional material you feel you need to better evaluate what is shown. I decided to post first results obtained on the Sniper's Nest window, taken from the Hughes film. I thought it would be best, because the controversy might be reduced (granted, there are "interpolating" possible subplots... ) to the presence of Oswald at that very precise location. The image in the next post is taken from the Hughes film: it is numbered "n°3" in my files, but this does not pertain to any official sequencing of that film, if such a thing exists. It is my screen capture counting. I'd like to stress I was, and till am, taken aback by the image. It destroyed by own carefully reconstructed scenario of the case.... Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) ..here is what the processed image of the Sniper's Nest from the Hughes film shows. Edited December 2, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I don't think it's necessary to see the actual gif. I think the process helps me understand some of what you're talking about. I still think that there is a finite amount of information in the base images you use but when you resize them in whatever way the algorithm that performs the resizing creates a predictable set of new data that when zoomed in on appear to show things that simply cannot be said to be there. (IMO) ...that is why I suggested that there might be a way to verify this very specific point, by checking the data gain between evolving versions (which would appear to manifest very major, credible information increase, like Bond 4) and the original, factored in with the number of iterations...... ) First, I think you should post a copy of the original as well as finished. I don't know how but if you or anyone can suggest a good linux hex binary editor that might help? Also with Image Analyzer (MeeSoft, free/postcard ware) you can get graphing of values for each step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 ..here is what the processed image of the Sniper's Nest from the Hughes film shows. Sir, your replies do not deal with the situation... If the man in Bond 4 was the man on the steps and your process shows there is a policeman there before and after the shots.... yet in reality it was this other man, the final output is not reliable.... which is why I ask you to enhance and make visual the features of the man's face sittin gon the steps in Bond4... this is somehting we KNOW to exist, so instead of CREATING something that was not there to begin with... your process can show us how it reveals the facial features that are most definitley in the data set, as you claim. The "hughes" image you posted tells us very little... you claim you see something... outline it please... lighter the background... and as John asks... show us the starting point with the same refernce star so it's in the same place on both images... Can you do that without the soapbox opera you provide with each reply? Finally, using a reference point like the star and then stating it is NOT a refernece point is very bad form Franz... Of course I can size your images to match the original... then again... I've tried repeatedly and cannot get the scale to work... Please post the original starting image and the EXACT SAME SCALED IMAGE after the process... of the Bond 4 enhancement... or any other before/after you'd liek to provide yet ON THE SAME SCALE - exactly please thanks DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 "If the man in Bond 4 was the man on the steps and your process shows there is a policeman there before and after the shots.... yet in reality it was this other man, the final output is not reliable...." I told you your logic is faulty on this one: the man on Bond 4 cannot be "this other man" (your bystander on the stairs) just because Black Dog Man can bee seen in four undisputed pictures (not 1, 4, and not counting yet unknown images like those from the Niw film) before the shooting started, at a time when the other man is still on the stairs. This means the "other man" would have to be physically present at the same time in 2 different locations. We can still go around that but, last time I checked this was only considered possible for photons and stuff like that, not macro objects like a human body... "which is why I ask you to enhance and make visual the features of the man's face sittin gon the steps in Bond4... this is somehting we KNOW to exist," ...and that is why I proposed to follow on your proposal, and that we could take this maybe thru some sort of controlled protocol, ideally crosschecked by different parties. Apparently I maybe was not explicit enough saying this, so I am saying it again... "The "hughes" image you posted tells us very little... you claim you see something... outline it please... lighter the background... and as John asks... show us the starting point with the same refernce star so it's in the same place on both images..." ... I will post, as stated, several different versions of this same image for comparison: since the process is based on extrapolations (remember...) each result is unique, which allows for the data to manifests itself in slightly different manners, Yhere are versions with a "lighter" background. I do not outline images, because that will be actually putting totally extraneous data (not generated from interpolation/extrapolation of the original set) into the original data. Doing this, now we'd be starting to "drench the pixel in water to see what's behind the wall" to take your exemple. Outlining is irrelevant data, manually added into the data set. I just don't do this. Sure it requires the viewer an effort, but nothing comes free. "Can you do that without the soapbox opera you provide with each reply?" ...well you are presenting counter arguments, some less valid than others, and I am only pointing out what I think are weaknesses in your argumentation. I thought this was what forums were about... ...seems that you would prefer I come here agressively to force my own conclusions on people bearing different points of view, with blatant affirmations and no explanations at least trying to support them. Sorry, that's not me. I do not like people doing it to me, so I assume most people do not like it either... "Finally, using a reference point like the star and then stating it is NOT a refernece point is very bad form Franz... Of course I can size your images to match the original... then again... I've tried repeatedly and cannot get the scale to work..." ...please check the posting: it is clear to verify that I never said the star was a standard reference point. When you had trouble, apparently, adjusting your overlay, and you mentionned it was because you used the star for this, I indicated to you the star was used only to facilitate viewing of the area of interest (since, remember, I do not do outlining...). That is the less troublesome to give some visual help without contaminating the data being observed , which is below the star and thus, remains manually untouched. You actually do not need any star to do the overlay, I would think. The software I use allows for simple juxtaposition of frames: identical frames (like derivations of the same set)juxtapose perfectly: they just fuse. Now of course, I would be incapable of doing an overlay, so .... I will post the same frames here without the "star", at the same scale... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Okay Franz... nice tap dance yet again... Whether BDM is seen in 4 other images BEFORE the shots are fired is again, of no consequence whatsoever when processing Bond 4 as you did... Apples and Oranges... there is no direct relationship with what we see in Bond and what is seen in Willis/Betzner or any other image if BDM you claim to have found.... We don't need some controlled crosschecked experiment here Franz... just enlarge the face of the man on the steps and run your process... \ Since we both agree this person has facial features and since you continue to claim your process brings out hidden things within the images that is simply enhacning what's there and dropping what's not... DO IT. Post the enlarged image you start with and next to it the same exact sized/scaled image AFTER the process - if you can bring a DPD cops' face into focus from nothing but blur and shadow, this should be easy.... Showing us your process works on something we KNOW to be there could help us believe you are actually improving on what we've been doing in the past... But if all you're going to continue to do is post completely non-descript blobs of color and proclaim "THERE'S OSWALD" or "THERE'S the BDM" you are actually doing exactly what you claim you are not: ...seems that you would prefer I come here agressively to force my own conclusions on people bearing different points of view, with blatant affirmations and no explanations at least trying to support them. your offered explanations have been extremely lacking in substance and very long on excuses.... reference points that are not, scaling that is off, and a complete lack of understanding that the interpolations that you posted at different intervals for Bond 4 ALL ADDED DATA to the original that was never there.... Prove me wrong DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 I don't think it's necessary to see the actual gif. I think the process helps me understand some of what you're talking about. I still think that there is a finite amount of information in the base images you use but when you resize them in whatever way the algorithm that performs the resizing creates a predictable set of new data that when zoomed in on appear to show things that simply cannot be said to be there. (IMO) ...that is why I suggested that there might be a way to verify this very specific point, by checking the data gain between evolving versions (which would appear to manifest very major, credible information increase, like Bond 4) and the original, factored in with the number of iterations...... ) First, I think you should post a copy of the original as well as finished. I don't know how but if you or anyone can suggest a good linux hex binary editor that might help? Also with Image Analyzer (MeeSoft, free/postcard ware) you can get graphing of values for each step. ..I will post today a composite of the original Huges frame I worked with, with a processed result showing the image obtained. I would be incapable of much help on the hard tech side of this crosschecking, I am afraid. You have probably understood that my facility with PC generation tools is very, very limited. I still think, that the solution I indicated (crosschecking the data gain against the iteration value, and computing the odds that it could be a random, non supported result) might be a way to do it. Now what software could do it, and the programming protocol to do just that, would have to be left to specialists of the field, I think... Do you think what I am suggesting is feasible, from the logical point of view? We have quantified values: an apparent gain in data content, on the one hand, and a number of derivations input into the data flow, on the other hand. it should be possible to express that "apparent gain ratio" on a graph, then compare it to a test run on the same material + a test run on a totally unrelated different set, all with same iterations numbers, and then see if anything meaningfull can be extracted from that... *running a duplicate random on the original test could maybe help us start to evaluate (though very approximatively, I would think, but an indication is better than nothing...) the relative value of subjectivity in the process (choosing which files you interpolate, and which you not). This would be very useful for further, indispensable verification *running the process on a unrelated set would show us if it is possible to "create" apparently detailed and very realist images (like Bond 4, for instance)within a finite set of iterations. It can be done randomly (double crosschecking of 1), or with subjectivity factored in, and even maximized: the proposition could be: "you have 271 iterations at your disposal: interpolate them as you want in order to produce an image with definition data content equal to the processed Bond 4". Mentionning Bond 4, it would be interesting to see what could be obtained by using classic enhancment tools on the processed version. Optical tools do enhance images: it should be possible to verify if the fine details of the face are confirmed by the conventional method, or if on the contrary they dissolve into thin air, like all optical illusions do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 ...here is a composite of 2 crops of Hughes frame n°3, at the same scale. The original is on the left, the processed result is on the right. Note that this iteration (on the right) is different from the one I posted first with the caption. This illustrate the "uncertainty" aspect of the process. It will not generate, by definition, exact duplicate, but produce slightly differently extrapolated versions of the data set: iterative correlation is what will refine the data. All derivations are unique, though some may seem identitical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) ...Dave, You seem to have a highly emotional attitude to this. This is not my case, and I'd like to make this clear. If you check what I have posted so far, I have taken all sorts of precautions to explain that I have came here to verify very intriguing findings: these findings show, by all sorts aof corroborations, internal cross checking and all, that the shooting (that's all we are examining here) was apparently executed by people wearing Dallas Police uniforms. Now that's what I have found shows. I am not affirming that is true: I am saying that this seems very, very highly credible, based on what I have found and shown here. I am quite confident in the validity of what I have found, and that I why I decided that they should be shown, but that's all... If you check, you will note that the word I use most is "verify". That what I came here for: help to "verify", not "PROVE", the process. For this, I need help on the technical side... I even suggested a test to try to "verify" it: now I don't know what the result of the test will be, of course, though I think it should be positive. I just don't know till it's done. We'll see from there. So I am even trying to suggest ways to prove that I am maybe wrong. I don't know, but that would seem a rather objective position to me, if I were in your position... You proposed a test, that I already accepted not once, but twice. I am only saying that this should be done under some sort of controlled protocol, with different 3rd parties controlling the process flow and the results. I don't want to answer your call, process an image (that takes time, I have explained...) and send you material, then having to reply to newly raised issues. That is not the way I work. I like to be organized in my workflow. I say let's set up a protocol which will allow for my processing a specific picture of interest, but in a way where all the data processing could be monitored and stored by 3rd parties in real time. How about some help on this, Dave? How could it be done in your view? Let's get constructive about it. We don't need unecessary emotion in this. In any case, I have always intended to visit Dallas one day, and maybe get to one of the conferences, so if there is no other possibilities, I think it can be arranged simply by me working on an image for some time whith one or more of the searchers on that occasion.... "your offered explanations have been extremely lacking in substance and very long on excuses.... reference points that are not, scaling that is off, " ...missed that one: -I already replied twice in details to "your refernce point argument" -the scaling as I recall, and as every one reading this thread can verify is yours, not mine... I was the one who thold you it was off the mark, by checking very basic reference points, like the wall and picket line... I would understand from your statement that you acknowledge that the overlay you have posted here to demonstrate that the Bond 4 image is not real is, actually, not valid... "Showing us your process works on something we KNOW to be there could help us believe you are actually improving on what we've been doing in the past..." ...Dave, this is actually what I am trying to do here: *the Belzner Black Dog Man is a known undisputed image, identified 33 years ago as "an individual in dark clothing standing behind the corner of the wall". It is not my identification: it is that of the HSCA experts. That's why I decided to work on this one: it is undisputed: there is a man there... *the Hughes film is undisputed. Nobody has claimed, as far as I know, that it not genuine. Oswald presence in that window is, at least for supporters of the Lone Shooter Theory, a prerequesite. The LN scenario says that Oswald shot from there. Again, it is not me saying it. I am only saying that, if the LN is true, there has to be somemone in that window, presumably Oswald. I am only asking the process to verify if more information about data pertaining to this individual could be extracted. So indeed, as you request, I am working on "data" that is "there", according to known facts (BDM's identification) or very highly probable facts (like the presence of a man, whatever his identity, in the sniper's window).... Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) ..here is another composit, showing the process result relative to the full frame, not the crop. This is still a different iteration.... ..results from the full processed frames also show one one of the Negro employee in the window below the Sniper's nest.... Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) ...Dave requested that I post an outlined version of the image in Hughes 3. I explained that I don't do this, and why. I understand I may have to break some rule here, because of the controversial nature of the material. I have settled to only cut out part of the background inside the window, following these rules: -I am cutting out totally dark areas, which brings no information to the image. I am not taking groups of differentiating pixels out of the picture. The only content removed is "solid black" in "very definite areas", which is a low variable here. This does not garantee that no image could, somehow, be created this way. It shows only that I am not practicing some funky japanese-style cissors work here. -the contours of the cut out do not interfer with the reference points for the image, as can be seen clearly. I have kept on purpose a dark contour, by keeping part of the identical data that was removed. So to avoid any argument about scales and refernce point, I will say this clearly: *This cut out version does not purport to be an actual representation of the man's posture in the window. It is posted here to maybe help some viewers to have a better grasp of the information present in the image. Solid dark areas only, in very specifically determined locations (thus presenting very low apparent optical value) have been removed. Easy crosschecking between the different versions posted so far will allow viewers to verify this. I think it was important that this was made clear.... Dave asked what I saw in the image. I 'll rather let people make their own mind. But I 'll try to explain why I think this image is interesting and cannot, as is the case for Bond 4, be brushed away easily.... ..again, this is a different iteration.... Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) ..I will post now a number of different iterations of the full frame, for comparison. It will serve to illustrate again the "uncertainty" aspect of the process, but also the "recurring information" rule that serves as its base. It is also interesting because it shows that the process was applied to the full image, considered as a full set of data. I did not process a selected part of it: I did not select any specific area a priori, then try to "force feed" data into it that would fit my own theory. I processed the whole data set, and then went to look for newly revealed data. I stress this since we discuss the "subjectivity factor" in the processing... All iterations are unique. All iterations contain shared data. The process is interested in the "shared data"... This can also serve to verify that the application of classic optical enhancement on the processed image will not destroy it, like it should if it was an unsupported artefact: you can get up to X6 enlargement on a laptop screen, and still not lose the details of the image in the Sniper's nest window. This is very peculiar. Searchers who have an interest in the eventual presence of accomplices on the 6th floor will want to check the pair of windows left of the Sniper's Nest.... The head of one of the Negro employee can also bee seen, in the window just below the Sniper's nest Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay 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