Another JFK The Lost Bullet Enhanced Hughes Frame

[Sandy Larsen]

Original frame taken from my copy of JFK The Lost Bullet DVD.

I enhanced the arrowed area. What do you see?

I've taken a second look and now I realize that the "pixels" seen in the image on the right are a result of the "enhancement" and appear not be pixels at all. Just a matrix of pixel-like rectangles.

EDIT: I wonder if these pixel-like rectangles could be JPEG artifacts caused by excessive image compression.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Guest]

I have no idea what your intentions are, whether you are trying to investigate this properly or actually are using this in conjunction with the Prayer Man (!!!) footage. There is a huge difference!

But I have some startling news for you: there is no one in that window on the 6th floor. Nor is there a barrel sticking out of that very same window while the limo is turning.

The source material you are using (a dvd and/or Gerda Dunckel's video), is inferior to what is around and is of better quality.

Search and ye will find!

There are FBI documents that support my thesis, as to just an interpretation of an inferior image.

1. Although the FBI had the Hughes film in its possession 4 days (Nov 26th 1963) after the Big Event, the WC decided not to use it. This is an important FACT! Actually the WC barely used anything from that day while they were aware of most photographs and film footage they choose not to admit it into evidence. Now that would be an interesting topic!
2. In a memo dated Nov 26th it says it appears that there may be someone in the 6th floor window.
3. This is repeated in a memo on Nov 28th by A. Rosen to Alan Belmont
4. Alan Belmont (what a conniving p.o.s. he was) writes on Nov 28th, the same day he received the memo from Rosen without any further evidence besides jumping on the band wagon that he can see one person in the window.
5. A memo by Robert Barrett makes the same claim, let's also add that this particular finding comes from Dallas first and foremost. The FBI lab in Wa. has not had their hands on the Hughes film yet and investigate this particular claim. And this shift from Dallas to Washington is where things seem to change!!!
6. The FBI makes 10 copies of the film according to the memo on Dec 9th (check out all the signatures!) and guess what? They reported they could NOT SEE ANY HUMAN FORM in that window. And you can?
7. But it is getting better! In a memo (which includes Belmont as one of the recipients btw!) from Dec 10th by W.D. Griffth it is repeated that no human form is visible. But it is getting worse for you. Not only does the FBI investigate this in WA. and comes to the conclusion I just mentioned.. They want a second opinion and the FBI sends it to the Navy Photographic Interpretation Centre and they conclude the same.
8. This begs the question that if there is no shooter visible in that sequence how on earth could he take aim with the rifle, with a scope no less in such a limited time, and let's face it it takes longer to aim with a scope than iron sight. I have been in the army and I have done both ways and no one can tell me it goes equally as quick. Your field of vision is heavily restricted when using a scope.
9. Now I know what I am telling you holds no value, yack yack yack. Or you nitpick something in this reply, but the evidence is overwhelming that the Hughes film is worthless when it comes to identifying anyone in that window.

All documents regarding the Robert Hughes film can be viewed here.

Since there are more than 5 pix (which is the maximum to post inside a post) and I am not really in the mood to copy and paste more after uploading them all, I rather take the possible reply from you that I am after loads of clicks to proof that your assumptions are dead wrong with an inferior image and no evidence to boot (a pattern is emerging no?) so you can ignore this post, but I think the many other people who are interested can see and judge for themselves.

And again, unless you have a half decent reply with better evidence and I am not talking about moving a few sliders up and down in Photoshop or an equivalent program.

I rest my case and move on to more important matters.

[Guest]

I have no idea what your intentions are, whether you are trying to investigate this properly or actually are using this in conjunction with the Prayer Man (!!!) footage. There is a huge difference!

But I have some startling news for you: there is no one in that window on the 6th floor. Nor is there a barrel sticking out of that very same window while the limo is turning.

The FBI makes 10 copies of the film according to the memo on Dec 9th (check out all the signatures!) and guess what? They reported they could NOT SEE ANY HUMAN FORM in that window. And you can?

I have news for you.

i did not make any claims in this thread that dates back to 2011

Secondly, there was a barrel sticking out of the window at the Hughes turn.

Amos euins confirmed this. He was there, you were not.

Lastly: Show the Forum from your genius analysis of all of my posts on this thread, where I stated, as you claim I did, that there was a human form, or a human face....go on.go on, well what are you waiting for.....go on

No?

Then what is this horse manure you post in #16?

Let's do one better shall we?

My oh my...

You just use the barrel now?

So this means you are recanting the rubbish of seeing a person in there?

And I have some MORE news for you.

Read his affidavit

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_1978.pdf

In it he says 2 shots were fired/sounded and sounded like an automatic rifle.

He also says he saw a man step behind some boxes, yet he could not ID him, nor say what outfit the man wore which in all honesty he should have noticed. But let’s just assume he was told to shut up. I mean we know what Dallas in the 60’s was like and its overall treatment of African Americans.

His FBI statement is the epiphany of diverting any attention to the details he could provide.

In his second FBI statement two weeks after his first he reckons it is the 5^th floor window where the shots are fired from, more than 3 weeks after the deed. It gets better, he says there were 4 shots and he mentions the bald spot.

Nowhere in that video (3 shots?) does he state he saw someone in that window. Now why would that be? It would open a huge can of worms and Max Holland would have a problem explaining all this wouldn’t he? No I wasn’t there but what I do know is that the kid’s recollections are all over the place, and as with many other witness statements mainly due to the workings of the FBI.

In Euins WC testimony and his 2^nd FBI statement he states 4 (!!!) shots were fired.....now that would be a little destructive to your other theory of Oswald did it no?

There is the mention of the bald spot he noticed of the person he apparently sees...........Did Oswald have a bald spot? Nothing further, no clothing Euins can divulge, only a bald spot.

Specter is trying to discredit him, but he stands his ground

Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head.

Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't know whether he was a white man or a Negro? All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that down here?

Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, is there anything else in this statement, Amos. which is different from the way you remember this event, as you are sitting here right now?

Amos, did you understand the last question?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you answer it for us?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I don't think there is.

Mr. SPECTER. I don't understand you, Amos. The question I am trying to get at it, as you read that statement over now, you have testified or told us here today what you remember about this assassination?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. And I am asking you, when you read that statement over, is there anything on that statement which you think is wrong, based on what you remember right now?

For example, you told us that they were wrong when they wrote down that you identified him as a white man. Were they wrong about anything else that they wrote down?

Mr. EUINS. Not that I can see.

Mr. SPECTER. All right.

When you looked up and saw this man, Amos, did he have on a hat?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you notice any boxes behind him at that time, Amos?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; there were some boxes, you know, all the side of the window. Like this window--there were some boxes in these windows up here.

Mr. SPECTER. You saw some boxes in these windows?

Mr. EUINS. In these windows, and these windows, and there was boxes in half of this one.

Mr. SPECTER. All right.

How about this little gem:

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know who that man was who said somebody ran out the back?

Mr. EUINS. No, sir. He was a construction man working back there.

205

Mr. SPECTER. Were you there when the man talked about somebody running out the back?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. He said the man had--he said he had kind of bald spot on his head. And he said the man come back there.

But Euins is not the issue here. it's the recognition of someone standing there in the Robert Hughes film as you claim with your photographic skills, which has been debunked by the FBI themselves and it was not used by the WC, I mean the WC would have a field day would they not if the person was actually visible?

.

Getting Euins involved in this element of the case is merely a distraction instigated by you.

This is what always is the issue with characters like McAdams and you. You pick one tiny bit and hammer it home, well at least you try, but your failure lies in not looking at ALL the available evidence and drawing your conclusions from that.

I just showed that 2x with the FBI debunking the man in the window fugezi story and Amos Euins, with proof or evidence as you may call it.

You need to do better Duncan, for starters stay on topic!

[Thomas Graves]

I have no idea what your intentions are, whether you are trying to investigate this properly or actually are using this in conjunction with the Prayer Man (!!!) footage. There is a huge difference!

But I have some startling news for you: there is no one in that window on the 6th floor. Nor is there a barrel sticking out of that very same window while the limo is turning.

The FBI makes 10 copies of the film according to the memo on Dec 9th (check out all the signatures!) and guess what? They reported they could NOT SEE ANY HUMAN FORM in that window. And you can?

I have news for you.

i did not make any claims in this thread that dates back to 2011

Secondly, there was a barrel sticking out of the window at the Hughes turn.

Amos euins confirmed this. He was there, you were not.

Lastly: Show the Forum from your genius analysis of all of my posts on this thread, where I stated, as you claim I did, that there was a human form, or a human face....go on.go on, well what are you waiting for.....go on

No?

Then what is this horse manure you post in #16?

There's nothing on that post, or any other post on the thread where I state that there is a person in the window.

All I do is provide a zoomed in crop of the window.

You are definately intellectually challenged if you can't understand what Euins is saying in the video which I included in post number 16.

He said that he seen the "pipe" sticking out the window as the cars were turning the corner. That's a FACT!!! Get over it

Duncan,

It's obvious that Euins was and still is a paid professional disinformation agent.

laughing out loud

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

I have no idea what your intentions are, whether you are trying to investigate this properly or actually are using this in conjunction with the Prayer Man (!!!) footage. There is a huge difference!

But I have some startling news for you: there is no one in that window on the 6th floor. Nor is there a barrel sticking out of that very same window while the limo is turning.

The FBI makes 10 copies of the film according to the memo on Dec 9th (check out all the signatures!) and guess what? They reported they could NOT SEE ANY HUMAN FORM in that window. And you can?

I have news for you.

i did not make any claims in this thread that dates back to 2011

Secondly, there was a barrel sticking out of the window at the Hughes turn.

Amos euins confirmed this. He was there, you were not.

Lastly: Show the Forum from your genius analysis of all of my posts on this thread, where I stated, as you claim I did, that there was a human form, or a human face....go on.go on, well what are you waiting for.....go on

No?

Then what is this horse manure you post in #16?

There's nothing on that post, or any other post on the thread where I state that there is a person in the window.

All I do is provide a zoomed in crop of the window.

You are definately intellectually challenged if you can't understand what Euins is saying in the video which I included in post number 16.

He said that he seen the "pipe" sticking out the window as the cars were turning the corner. That's a FACT!!! Get over it

Duncan,

It's obvious that Euins was and still is a paid professional disinformation agent.

laughing out loud

--Tommy

Either that, or that video of him was faked.

[Guest]

Dude, did you get whacked by that very same pipe?

Perhaps if you ceased to be a denier and address the issues instead, everyone at this forum would be so much better of.

What was it what Greg said?

The desperation for victory shows in such minuscule and erroneous nitpicks with the accompanying avoidance of substance.

Nitpicking, yeah exactly!

Edited January 13, 2016 by Bart Kamp

[Craig Carvalho]

From Thierry Speth's enhanced version of the Hughes film. I used IrfanView software to separate each individual frame and chose this one to zoom in on. I displayed this photo for the first time on Duncan's website a little over a year ago.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Craig Carvalho

[Jon G. Tidd]

Duncan,

What information can be obtained from your image?

[Thomas Graves]

Duncan,

What information can be obtained from your image?

I don't know, Jon. That's why I ask questions about the window, and don't make statements, contary to what Bark is saying.

What I notice most often when I look at it anew each time is the large face and head of a clean-shaven, dark-haired Caucasian male with his head turned to his right so far as to be almost in profile, and looking down somewhat, as though he's looking at something down on Elm Street or in the Grassy Knoll area.

I can make out this head in both the second and the third images in the series that Duncan posted in post # 1.

--Tommy

Edited January 14, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Kathleen Collins]

I didn't read the details of this thread because I didn't want to be affected. This is what I see. I was struck immediately by the "hairline." It made me think this was the Oswald in Ruby's club, because if I'm seeing it right the man has Lee Oswald's hairline. The man's head is turned to his right a bit. He has more hair than Harvey Oswald. Look up the hairline of Lee in Ruby's club. He's a caucasian and he resembles the man in the club. That's all I see. One face. I always like your work, Duncan. Keep going.

I have the photo of Lee in my computer but I can't seem to post it. And I don't know how to attach it here.

Kathy C

[Trygve V. Jensen]

Just asking quickly for curiosity, - maybe it has been addressed already. Haven't gotten time to search / read.

To those skilled within the field (I'm afraid I'm not even skilled enough to convey my question in this somewhat technical English, but still,);

For instance, - I remember, was it MPI ? ; the restoration, enhancement of the Zapruder film etc., - where one could view the information in between the sprocket - holes (For the first time ? ) . Suddenly one had more to work with. (The Norwegian magazine I have, published Dec 7th. 63' have slides from the Z-film, where this information is visible. They purchased the rights from LIFE, - and was available of course back then, when LIFE published beforehand. )

Is there by now, a version of the Robert Hughes - film , - in which the information in between the sprocket - holes is visible ? If not, - does it depend on type of camera he used,- or what. Would just be interesting to at least view the best copy out there.

Bear with my ignorance. I ridicule myself on a daily basis,- but that is just aye okay.

[Trygve V. Jensen]

Would be entertaining / interesting to be able to view as far westwards as possible also.

To my knowledge the furthest panning of the camera, --- to the left/west, from the "official" film :

--------------------------------------------------------------

Can see further westwards in this one, - from this unnamed documentary:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Sprocket :