So I will give it one last try…..

[Thomas Graves]

I've taken Christian's frame, enlarged it and saved in png format.

I then deblurred the image using the software "Deblurmyimage" at the setting Out of focus correction, progressive method, maximum deblur.

Once again, I haven't a clue about the science behind the deblurring, or the accuracy of the results, but this is what the processed result shows.

Fascinating stuff! I really want to believe that he's a shooter or an accomplice. What about the head size? If he was backed up a couple of feet from the window frame to make his face appear so small, would that much sunlight have been falling on it? Or is the size of his head correct as it is, right up near the window?

--Tommy

Edited December 3, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

...this is iteration n° 237....

....n°260....

Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

....this is n° 263...

...and n° 264...

...again, check the intriguing patterns in the pair of windows to the left of the Sniper's nest...

Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

"Fascinating stuff! I really want to believe that he's a shooter or an accomplice. What about the head size? If he was backed up a couple of feet from the window frame to make his face appear so small, would that much sunlight have been falling on it? Or is the size of his head correct as it is, right up near the window?"

...hi Tommy...

I am not in the "I want to believe" frame of mind, but I think I know what you mean...

This is why I think the image is interesting:

-it clearly shows what appears to be a 3-Dimensional object located between the photographer's lens and the window frame. We can verify that the object, whatever it is, is located just outside of the window by using the white window frame, forming an horizontal line beyond it.

The object is occulting that line from view It has volumes and reliefs, even secondary shadow areas,that are strikingly "real"

-the light distribution on this 3-D object is very highly coherent, and is arguably very compatible whith that of a man in dark attire and cap, crouching in the window. It would seem that a dark object is hiding part of the lower right quadrant of his face

-the apparent face has very distinctive flesh tones

...checking my files, the Hughes frames I worked with come from the JFK Lancer site

Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

..I will use one last further iteration (n°339), to add a few things:

*notice how the whole processed image has internal coherence: for instance, all the opened windows have turned into very definite dark areas. Not the Sniper's nest window only, but all of them.

*notice also the recurring information: though the processed result is different from the original, it still carries the same basic ("true") information: dimensions,numbers and locations of windows, structure lines from walls, architectural forms, etc.

So one other way to put this under some sort of technical "crunch" could be to compute the odds that such a strikingly clear image as that found in the Sniper's nest (not this one below, the one posted previously with a caption, which is a further iteration...) might be randomly produced in a finite number of iterations, while still allowing the whole set to carry on a very solid core of valuable data overall...

Note, for instance in the extreme close up posted above, that the white line of the window frame is still very coherent with its original "value", expressed as a white horizontal line behind the object. It sure is "degraded", but the basic core information is here.

So this poses a question, maybe, to the randomly generated hypothesis

Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

...the full Bond 4 file is 34,7 mo. It should be easily made available, if you tell me how to do it.

I only request that the precise content of the file I will make available is documented by different independant parties, so that no confusion can arise in the future about what was in the files originally sent. I think that can be arranged easily with help here...

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

...the image from Hughes frame n°3 is just that, an image, although very convincing.

You can always, very justifiably contest a single image. That 's just a single interpretation in the end, no matter how many extrapolations and interpolations.

So the good thing with films is that they record lots of successive frames of identitical (in scientifically controlled conditions) or very similar data set at different moment in time: they are usefull for correlations and corroborations.

Applying the same concept of resilience of information (but to separate time frames this time), if the image in n°3 is "true", it should be manifest in some form in n°2 also. If the image is "not true" but just a randomly generated artifact, it will not be there under any recognizable form

I have downloaded 2 Hughes frames from the Lancer site (actually 3, but one was lost before any real work).

I will post now results from the processing of Hughes frame n°2.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

...here is a composite of 2 processed versions of Hughes frame n°2, which can be used to corroborate or discredit, the case may be, the image found in n°3...

Note that the 2 versions are on the same scale, though the face on the right appears slightly "fuller" than the face on the left version.

This is the extrapolation at work. The basic core information is carried away but extrapolations based on it may of course fluctuate...

Edited December 4, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

....just to make matters clear, I'd like to summarize where we stand right now in this impromptu walk thru the photographic evidence:

*we applied an unconventional (that I have tried my best to describe though) process to a known, established image (Black Dog Man), to verify that it could bring valid additional information up to now unavailable. The validity of the "new information" would be its coherence with the previously established data. Extracting an image of santa Claus would not be a validation of the process, on the contrary.

The process indicates that the "dark clothing" is actually a uniform. This is new information coherent with the data already established.

*we applied the process to another area, where the official theory states that Oswald shot at JFK, and killed him. The HSCA only conceded that an extra shot was fired from the fence corner area. Their conclusion was that Oswald was in that window. So if he was there, the process which has brought some remarkable results on Belzner, might able to confirm this, or at least a human presence, since everybody agrees that there was "objectively" somebody there, who thus might have been recorded. That's data.

The processed data indicates that there is indeed a man there, but that it is clearly not Oswald, because of the disctinctive features of his clothing.

He would actually appear to be a Dallas Police officer...

Edited December 3, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay

[Thomas Graves]

I've taken Christian's frame, enlarged it and saved in png format.
I then deblurred the image using the software "Deblurmyimage" at the setting Out of focus correction, progressive method, maximum deblur.
Once again, I haven't a clue about the science behind the deblurring, or the accuracy of the results, but this is what the processed result shows.

Fascinating stuff! I really want to believe that he's a shooter or an accomplice. What about the head size? If he was backed up a couple of feet from the window frame to make his face appear so small, would that much sunlight have been falling on it? Or is the size of his head correct as it is, right up near the window?

--Tommy

After I processed the image, I immediately noticed that the "face" had a resemblance, including moustache, to the face of Roy Hargraves. Probably my eyes playing tricks on me again.

[...]
--Tommy

P.S. Well, I guess this eliminates Hargraves as a TUM suspect. Hargraves probably used Hemming's scoped 30.06 breakdown Johnson for the job. Edited December 19, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

...I am posting below a composite of both Hughes 2 and 3, for easier cross checking of correlations and discrepancies between the 2 images.

One of the most pertinent, I think, argument that has been raised to criticize what I am showing here is the "randomly generated image" hypothesis. Basically the argument says: "How can we verify that those images, even very convincing, are not caused by mere statistical occurence carrying no real information value?"

That's why I suggested 2 tests that, translated into protocol form by people who know how to do this, could maybe help us on that aspect.

The correlation exercise below is actually a low complexity way of exploring this aspect in the meantime:

*Hughes 2 and 3 are actually, in absolute value, 2 totally different sets of data, since they were not recorded at the same time

*the fact that 2 different sets of data should produce, randomly, identical or higly similar "fake" information (whch can be croschecked for correlations) should statiscally runs at very low odds

Let's say you take a bucket of sand from a sand box, throw it on the ground and notice you can see a perfect image of the Joconda. Though very, very improbable, maths show that this is potentially true: it can happen.It can be a random artefact.

Now if you take a second bucket of sand and obtain the same result (or very similar), then we will have a problem with the random aspect, I would think.

So the composite is posted here for the viewer to do the exercise himself, and verify the correlations / corroborations between the 2 images:

-the more correlation we have, the stronger this goes in favour of a real image, as opposed to a visual artefact

-if we have only on correlation, like the countours of a man's torso in the window, that not bad but that's rather low. If we have correlations of other details, then that's better....

..though it was not explicited sated in the files I downloaded, my understanding was that teh numbering was sequencial, meaning Hughes 2 "happens" sometime before Hughes 3. I have not idea of the time lapse involved, but since the Hughes film is quite short, it should also not be very significant.

differnt time frame will of course have the intrest to allow for checking of eventual movements: remember the "shooter in white shirt" from the mid sixties, a convincing image found in films, except for the fact that it never moved for several minutes.....

Nota: just to make sure there is no issue here, images are not on the same scale (just noticed the images are not captioned: Hughes 2 is on left, Hughes 3 on right).....

I find 4 points of correlation between the 2:

-the general image of a man crouching in the window, with facial features visible

-he is wearing a cap

-he is wearing a dark clothing

-there is a dark object hiding part of his face (the cheek in Hughes 2, the lower right chin in Hughes 3)

The sequence is suggestive of the man moving the object across his face

Edited December 4, 2011 by Christian Frantz Toussay

[Thomas Graves]

connection problem... dupe

Edited December 4, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

connection problem... dupe

Edited December 4, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

...I am posting below a composite of both Hughes 2 and 3, for easier cross checking of correlations and discrepancies between the 2 images.

One of the most pertinent, I think, argument that has been raised to criticize what I am showing here is the "randomly generated image" hypothesis. Basically the argument says: "How can we verify that those images, even very convincing, are not caused by mere statistical occurence carrying no real information value?"

That's why I suggested 2 tests that, translated into protocol form by people who know how to do this, could maybe help us on that aspect.

The correlation exercise below is actually a low complexity way of exploring this aspect in the meantime:

*Hughes 2 and 3 are actually, in absolute value, 2 totally different sets of data, since they were not recorded at the same time

*the fact that 2 different sets of data should produce, randomly, identical or higly similar "fake" information (whch can be croschecked for correlations) should statiscally runs at very low odds

Let's say you take a bucket of sand from a sand box, throw it on the ground and notice you can see a perfect image of the Joconda. Though very, very improbable, maths show that this is potentially true: it can happen.It can be a random artefact.

Now if you take a second bucket of sand and obtain the same result (or very similar), then we will have a problem with the random aspect, I would think.

So the composite is posted here for the viewer to do the exercise himself, and verify the correlations / corroborations between the 2 images:

-the more correlation we have, the stronger this goes in favour of a real image, as opposed to a visual artefact

-if we have only on correlation, like the countours of a man's torso in the window, that not bad but that's rather low. If we have correlations of other details, than that's better....

..though it was not explicited sated in the files I downloaded, my understanding was that teh numbering was sequencial, meaning Hughes 2 "happens" sometime before Hughes 3. I have not idea of the time lapse involved, but since the Hughes film is quite short, it should also not be very significant.

differnt time frame will of course have the intrest to allow for checking of eventual movements: remember the "shooter in white shirt" from the mid sixties, a convincing image found in films, except for the fact that it never moved for several minutes.....

Nota: just to make sure there is no issue here, images are not on the same scale (just noticed the images are not captioned: Hughes 2 is on left, Hughes 3 on right).....

Christian,

When you get some free time (LOL), would you please apply your process to the photographic "captures" (stills), taken from the Robert Hughes film, which show Tan Jacket Man apparently handing off something to the guy I call "Blue Coated Cuban-Looking Man" in the parking lot? Chris Davidson has done some work on it and believes he's found the curved end of an umbrella handle in TJM's left hand immediately after the putative "hand off". I'm convinced that the handing off of a small back object from TJM to BCC-LM did take place, but so far I've been unable to convince anyone that I'm right...

Thanks,

--Tommy

P.S. Keep up the good work!

P.P.S. Anyone else out there want to take a shot at it? (John Dolva?)

Edited December 4, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Christian Frantz Toussay]

"Christian,

When you get some free time (LOL), would you please apply your process to the photographic "captures" (stills), taken from the Robert Hughes film, which show Tan Jacket Man apparently handing off something to the guy I call "Blue Coated Cuban-Looking Man" in the parking lot? Chris Davidson has done some work on it and believes he's found the curved end of an umbrella handle in TJM's left hand immediately after the putative "hand off". I'm convinced that the handing off of a small back object from TJM to BCC-LM did take place, but so far I've been unable to convince anyone that I'm right..."

....I have noticed you have put a thread on this subject, but I have not had the time to check it.

I don't know the basics of this specific subplot but I assume it pertains to the umbrella-as -a-weapon theory.

Since you have already noticed the difficulty of image interpretation, even on much larger scale objects like human bodies, I am not sure you could extract data sufficiently convincing to definitely shut the case to the satisfactions of people with different opinions.

But let me see the images involved if you want...