Jump to content
The Education Forum

Decoding Dallas: debunking the pareidolia argument...

Recommended Posts



...I think I would address, preemptively, the argument of pareidolia, which will be the major argument of critics of what I am trying to present here.

Pareidolia is a known phenomenon, which will induce the human brain to retrieve fictitious images from a random data set, if it tries hard enough. So you can get a pareidolia experience by looking at clouds, stains on a wall, toasted buns, city maps or even a birth mark.

Pareidolia was actually used by ancient astronomers to map the sky: "Hey, see that groups of stars that looks like a big bear? Lets' call it Ursa Major..."

So pareidolia is a fact. Now that doesn't mean that it can be used at will to debunk or refute any observation you don't agree with.

First, let us state that pareidolia is valid in a one-set system only, i.e. a system with only one image source. If you have only one image, and nothing more, the pareidolia /optical artefact argument can be justifiably raised (I am talking here of people of good faith...).

But if you have several sources, for example images captured from different instruments, from different angles, and at slightly different times (so making it a multiple-set system...), the pareidolia argument just cannot stand. There is no optical illusion known to man capable of manifesting coherently along a time line and/or when seen from different perspectives.  Not one.

A good example of such pareidolia is the infamous "shooter in a white shirt behind the wall" from the Nix film, which had researchers quite excited in the 70's, until they realized that this apparently credible image did not move a iota during the shooting, and was still visible in the exact same pose when the limousine had long disappeared.

In this specific case, the time-lime analysis proved that this was simply an optical artefact. So how a potential image evolves along time is a solid indicator whether the image is objectively real, or fictitious.

The other crucial tool to detect eventual pareidolia is, as stated, the variations in angle of sight / point of view of the area under study. For this, of course, you have to be in a multiple-set system, i.e. a system containing several source sets showing the same area with different points of view.

A good, recent example of how this approach can be put to use efficiently, is the "Face On Mars" controversy: let me explain

To make it short, some scientists analyzing pictures from the Mars Surveyor mission in the 90's noticed a peculiar geological formation, which could be interpreted as an artificial structure, resembling a gigantic human head.

To resolve the growing controversy (remember, the guys promoting this hypothesis were not drug-crazy outcasts, but astronomers and NASA contractors..), NASA decided to take another set of pictures from the same area during a following mission.

The pictures, taken at a lower angle and with different light conditions, established that the artefact, though peculiar, was indeed natural and did not really resemble a human head when seen closely.

So in this case, the variation in point of view was the crucial tool to classify the image as indeed an optical artefact, and debunk the theory.


So what I will do now is use those two specific tools (evolution through time AND variations of point of view) to establish that the results I present cannot be considered pareidolia:


- I am posting below three different images of DPD n°3, crouching behind the wall, taken at different times from different points of view ( and using of course different equipment). Nota: this man is not to be confused with Man n°3 in the Nix film, standing on an elevation behind the fence. He is part of the decoy team which was deployed behind the wall. The presence of this team of "DPD officers", and their suppression, is the explanations for the "BlackDogMan" artefacts found in some pictures of the assassination.

- All three images display high internal coherence, despite the variables (time/point of view/equipment) and show the same thing: a man in dark blue uniform

- Moreover, corroborating details can be found in all three pictures: note for instance the tilted shoulder on the left seen in Betzner and Nix, the man holding an object close to his chest/face in Nix and Willis, and the Coke bottle in Nix and Willis. So you have what could be called " a translation of corroborative elements" between three different source sets (images), actually linking image 1 (Betzner) to image 2 (Nix) and on to image 3 (Willis).


Now I am not a statistician, but I would be much interested in the probability of this being any kind of optical illusion: the odds should be significantly higher than winning the State Lottery two times in a row....





But there is, actually, a third tool that is quite effective to sort out pareidolia from objective data: enlargement.

As a fact, enlargement is the Nemesis of optical illusions / pareidolia: just like in the case of the "Jesus on a Toast" image, enlargement will destroy rapidly brain-constructed images, which relies on blur and lack of details to play their trick.


So I am posting below an extreme enlargement of Man n°1 from Moorman (the accomplice), to confirm that enlargement does not make this image less credible, on the contrary:






I am adding below another results from Willis 5, where the Coke bottle may be more visible to those who missed it...:




Let me be precise here about the image source:


- the Betzner image is a new discovery, retrieved from the classic Betzner BlackDogMan picture. The man is actually visible (when you know where to look) in the original and it is quite perplexing that this image has not been discovered before

- the Nix image is also a new discovery, and for good reason: the suppression of the image of this man is the reason why the wall perspective in the Nix film is so weird. This image will be analyzed more in details in the presentation dedicated to the techniques used by the forgers

- the Willis image is an enhancement of the Willis 5 BlackDogMan artefact. It will also be used in the "Forgery Process" chapter of this presentation





Edited by Christian Toussay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Links are broken. Google Drive seems like your best bet - google isn't going out of business, so maybe drive links will work for years.


But thanks for more black dog nan stuff. Do we have an accounting of all the witnesses in photographs which remain unidentified?

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


On 4/7/2024 at 8:53 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Your Links are broken. Google Drive seems like your best bet - google isn't going out of business, so maybe drive links will work for years.


But thanks for more black dog nan stuff. Do we have an accounting of all the witnesses in photographs which remain unidentified?



I will try to repost the links asap. (done)


I essentially found undocumented DPD staff in the pictures and movies. I know of :

- a young Black couple behind the wall

- two men at the bottom of the stairs on the knoll

- one man sitting on the fire staircase in the DalTex, just above the shooter

Edited by Christian Toussay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...