Decoding Dallas: How They Fooled Us....

[Christian Toussay]

 

...Ok so I will continue this with the evidence of forgery of the record.

We have already seen the use of Special FX ( fake hair, fake stack of box), and total black out of unwanted details (the fence team, the DalTex team). I will present more examples of such forgeries, in the Nix and Zapruder films.

But now let us examine a different type of forgery. That is the third one, so evidently those guys came prepared.

Below is a high quality crop of Moorman, showing the fence and the retaining wall. "1" and "2" indicate the accomplice and the shooter, already analyzed in details.

But there is actually a third man captured in the crop of Moorman below, who has remained unnoticed all these years. I'll give you a clue: he is behind the wall.

Please try to locate him before looking at the processed result I will post just after:

 

 

Ok, so I will post now several results from the data bank of this specific file. Note top corner of retaining wall on the left, to verify the man's position.

This man, again wearing a DPD uniform, is actually "BlackDogMan", yet another collateral mystery of the JFKA that we are, very quietly, solving through this presentation:

 

 

It would appear that the man is bending over slightly over the wall corner, as if to look directly into the limousine.

Nota: the red artifact just above the man's head is artificial: I mistakenly fed into the data loop an iteration marked with a big red "1" just above the head.

This nevertheless is interesting because it illustrates how the process work; since the red "1" subset is unsupported in the data loop (it only appears once), the process is methodically erasing it in each successive iteration. Here, it simply appears as formless reddish smear. That is how the process cleans up forgery from the data.

 

Here are different results. They have been roughly detoured to facilitate the analysis:

 

Here, I have simply applied Scratch Removal to a processed result:

 

 

And, for those who would maybe consider, again, the Pareidolia Argument, and enlargement being the absolute Nemesis of optical illusion/pareidolia, here is an extreme close up of this man:

 

 

Now if you go back to the "original" image above in the thread, you might now be able to pick up, depending on your visual skills, a faint image of this man.

What they did was:

- first black out portions of the image were darkness/low light is prevalent

- also "white out" portions of the image where light is prevalent

- add a few touches here and there of same, depending on resulting context

- blur the area of concern

This is how, by suppressing the correct light and shadow distribution in the image, which is how the human brain (yes, we see with our brain, not our eyes...) decode visual data, you actually erase this man from the image.

Nothing complicated or exotic here: this basic concept is why military clothing in battlefields has those weird printed design...

 

I will present tomorrow other examples of this same type of forgery technique, showing how they were used to erase the presence of a decoy team behind the fence during the shooting, thus leading to the umpteenth collateral mystery that we will solve in this presentation: BlackDogMen.

Yes, plural.

Edited April 30 by Christian Toussay

[Christian Toussay]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

 Hi... Thanks for your interest.

Quite honored, in fact...

 This appears to be a blending of the two images. I am not sure that it establishes anything, other than software can now extrapolate images connecting two different point of view.

This does not mean that the proposed motion is realistic.

Actually, the GIF simply shows what kind of motion the Dillard box would have to go through to be in the Powell box position.

I am simply saying, and showing, that this specific motion is impossible

I will give you below two elements which, I believe, demonstrate that the GIF you posted is not realistic, from an optical point of view.

First notice how the box on the left (Dillard pix), goes all the way to the right, crossing as it does the vertical separation in the window just above (Powell pix).

If we were to use a clockwork analogy, the box in Dillard goes from 9 am in Dillard, to 1 pm in Powell.

Now:

- notice of the sharp box corner seen on the right in Dillard (use the vertical window separation above as reference) doesn't move at all, with respect to this reference point. Those two box are on the same plane, and close together, meaning the difference between their relative position from the camera is minimal, optically speaking.

Their movement should be correlated if the image is genuine.

- now look below at the Negro man on the left on the 5th floor. The same phenomenon is at work again: his position relative to the vertical segment of the window above does not move one inch between the two pictures, while the Dillard box travels all the way across the window to reach the Powell box position

 

So I will conclude that the Dillard / Powell discrepancy cannot be explained how you proposed in this GIF.

The proposed explanation, on the contrary, would seem to me to support the data I have presented:

- the stack of box cannot be explained away by some optical trick

- the "impossible" movement of the Dillard box to reach the Powell box position establishes that, as I have shown here, the Powell box is a forgery

 

Edited April 29 by Christian Toussay

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Christian Toussay said:

 Hi... Thanks for your interest.

Quite honored, in fact...

 This appears to be a blending of the two images. I am not sure that it establishes anything, other than software can now extrapolate images connecting two different point of view.

This does not mean that the proposed motion is realistic.

Actually, the GIF simply shows what kind of motion the Dillard box would have to go through to be in the Powell box position.

I am simply saying, and showing, that this specific motion is impossible

I will give you below two elements which, I believe, demonstrate that the GIF you posted is not realistic, from an optical point of view.

First notice how the box on the left (Dillard pix), goes all the way to the right, crossing as it does the vertical separation in the window just above (Powell pix).

If we were to use a clockwork analogy, the box in Dillard goes from 9 am in Dillard, to 1 pm in Powell.

Now:

- notice of the sharp box corner seen on the right in Dillard (use the vertical window separation above as reference) doesn't move at all, with respect to this reference point. Those two box are on the same plane, and close together, meaning the difference between their relative position from the camera is minimal, optically speaking.

Their movement should be correlated if the image is genuine.

- now look below at the Negro man on the left on the 5th floor. The same phenomenon is at work again: his position relative to the vertical segment of the window above does not move one inch between the two pictures, while the Dillard box travels all the way across the window to reach the Powell box position

 

So I will conclude that the Dillard / Powell discrepancy cannot be explained how you proposed in this GIF.

The proposed explanation, on the contrary, would seem to me to support the data I have presented:

- the stack of box cannot be explained away by some optical trick

- the "impossible" movement of the Dillard box to reach the Powell box position establishes that, as I have shown here, the Powell box is a forgery

 

To be clear, I didn't create this gif. I think it may have been Jerry Organ or someone over on the JFK Assassination Forum website. It had long been argued, at one time even by myself, that the two photos were not compatible. There was a member of this forum, Craig Lamson, who scoffed at such things, however, and argued that the photos showed the same boxes from two vastly different angles. I performed some home experiments with boxes in my living room and saw he was correct. Years later, moreover, I came across the gif, which demonstrates the point. The box that seems to move is a box in the background, and it appears to move because the photos were taken from two different angles. 

Edited April 30 by Pat Speer

[Christian Toussay]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

To be clear, I didn't create this gif. I think it may have been Jerry Organ or someone over on the JFK Assassination Forum website. It had long been argued, at one time even by myself, that the two photos were not compatible. There was a member of this forum, Craig Lamson, who scoffed at such things, however, and he argued that the photos showed the same boxes from two vastly different angles. I performed some home experiments with boxes in my living room and saw he was correct. Years later, moreover, I came across the gif, which demonstrates the point. The box that seems to move is a box in the background, and it appears to move because the photos were take from two different angles. 

 

...Sorry if I sounded abrasive: this was not intended at all. I meant the GIF you posted...

" The box that seems to move is a box in the background, and it appears to move because the photos were take from two different angles."

I think I have explained and shown why this is not the case.

The Dillard box is not in the background, but on the contrary touching the windowsill, as can be seen in the crop I posted. So it is on the same horizontal plane than the box corner on the right.

As I have shown, the Dillard box would have to go from "9 am" to "1 pm" (relative to the vertical segment of the window above), because of a change in point of view, while this same change does not affect any other features (box corner, left Negro man) in both pictures relative to that same reference point.

Ask any pilot, "9 am" to "1 pm" is a major movement.

This is an optical impossibility. Dillard's box cannot move into space: it is immobile. Its apparent displacement should be caused only by the movement of the camera, which would affect all and every reference points within these pictures. If it doesn't, like it is the case here, then we have a problem.

But, as everyone can see, the Dillard box actually crosses the vertical midsection of the window above, to get into the Powell position.

Let me say it again, this is an optical impossibility.

The relative position of the Dillard box to the vertical segment of the window above cannot change in space. It can change in perception, but this perception affects all reference points in the image. Thus, if the box appears to "move", all reference points will also "move". Changes in perspective may apply but the  overall perspective will be resilient between reference points in close proximity to one another.

So the presence of the Powell box, high up on the right side of the window , while the Dillard box lies low in the left corner of the same window, and while no other reference points in  both image has been affected by the "panning" of the camera, is a confirmation of the forgery.

I say confirmation because I have already posted images of what was being hidden.

 

Edited April 30 by Christian Toussay

[Richard Bertolino]

N

Edited Thursday at 02:41 AM by Richard Bertolino

[Richard Bertolino]

N

Edited Thursday at 02:41 AM by Richard Bertolino

[Christian Toussay]

14 hours ago, Richard Bertolino said:

Nice gif. It illustrates well the positional situation. If the boxes are a couple feet back from the window, the two photos are consistent regarding the box position. Also, nice that BRW stays in exactly the same position while Jarman disappears!

 

..Look at the Dillard enlargements I posted: the Dillard box on the left is actually touching the windowsill. And in the processed results from Powell, that is the case too, as I show below.

It is on the same horizontal plane than the box corner visible on the right.

The GIF simply shows the theorical movement of the box from one image to another: what I am saying here is that this movement is impossible, optically speaking.

Note that Dillard is almost perfectly horizontal: if we use a protractor, Dillard's box is at 0°, and Powell's at about 100°. That is a major translation for a change of perspective between the 2 images that doesn't appear to be superior to 20° on the horizontal plane.

More over, the change of perspective between Dillard and Powell is anti clockwise (tilted to the left), while the suggested movement of the box (allegedly caused by this change of perspective) is clockwise (left to right).

See below:

 

Edited April 30 by Christian Toussay

[Christian Toussay]

 

...OK, so I have already presented several techniques used by the forgers to fool us all those years:

- Special FX: adding fake data to modify the overall  meaning of the image, the stack of box in Powell being a point in case

- Blacking out or whiting out, depending on context, unwanted details or whole areas, as seen in Nix, Moorman and Altgens DalTex pix.

- destroying the image by camouflage: blacking out and whiting out different portions of the unwanted image, so as to confuse the usual light-and-shadow decoding pattern that the human brain utilizes to make sense of visual information. This was used to hide the man just shown in Moorman.

The finishing touch for all three techniques was to add a good amount of blur to the areas of concern.

 

This third technique is actually what generated the notorious BlackDogMan artifact, which was much discussed in the 60s and 70s, as some researchers thought this could be someone involved in the assassination. This artifact, coherent with a man crouching behind the wall, is seen in 2 pictures, Betzner and Willis 5, and got its moniker from the fact that it looks a bit like a dog sitting in profile on the wall.

The HSCA analyzed the images and concluded that the images indeed showed " a Caucasian individual in dark clothing". They never published details of their analysis, though.

So I will post below some results obtained on this iconic picture.

This is first a crop of the original Betzner BDM pix:

 

 

 

I post now a composite of this original plus 2 processed results. Note that the results were derived from a detoured version (background excised) of the original. The composite also illustrates the iterative nature of the process:

 

 

Notice how the image appears to shrink between the original on the left, and the last result on the right.

That is because the process has markedly diminished the blurring of the image by reducing uncertainty about the boundaries of groups of pixels composing the image.

 

Here is a different composite:

 

 

So it would appear that the mysterious BlackDogMan is, yet again a man in Dallas Police uniform: he is very probably the man seen in Moorman above in this thread.

What is quite interesting here in terms of forgery technique, is that you can still see the BDM pattern on the right of the image, while the rest of the image has "evolved" along the process, revealing previously invisible details on the left. This is definitively evidence of forgery.

One of these details is how the shadow extends through the air on the right of the man's face, forming the "neck" of the Black Dog artifact: shadows simply cannot appear in mid air...

What is also interesting, I would think, is that we see here that the process did not retrieve some fanciful  image, but did retrieve the image of "a Caucasian individual in dark clothing", just like the HSCA experts did in 1978.

It simply went one step further, by allowing us to identify the clothing in question.

So, as a summary:

 

 

Those BlackDogMen actually appears in many pictures and films: they were members of a decoy team deployed to cover the assassins' team in the parking lot, the most exposed of the three teams captured on films and pictures. It is difficult to assess exactly how many were present in the wall corner area, because of possible movements between frames. I have one result showing three, but most results show two.

In any case, as we've seen in Moorman, and just above, there was a DPD officer at the extremity of the wall near the stairs.

I will post tomorrow results establishing the presence of at least one other DPD officer further down the wall.

Edited April 30 by Christian Toussay

[Michael Crane]

I think we should send this to "America's Most Wanted"

John Walsh does a good job over there.

Edited April 30 by Michael Crane

[Charles Blackmon]

Am I the only one remaining who still can't see the posted images?

[Ron Bulman]

Maybe I'm too dense, but I see colors in a disorganized sense that means nothing to me.  No kind of image.  It reminds me of the effects of mind enhancing drugs. 

[Michael Crane]

4 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Am I the only one remaining who still can't see the posted images?

Let me know if you can see this & I'll post more if you would like.

 

 

 

[Richard Bertolino]

On 4/30/2024 at 3:20 PM, Christian Toussay said:

 

..Look at the Dillard enlargements I posted: the Dillard box on the left is actually touching the windowsill. And in the processed results from Powell, that is the case too, as I show below.

It is on the same horizontal plane than the box corner visible on the right.

The GIF simply shows the theorical movement of the box from one image to another: what I am saying here is that this movement is impossible, optically speaking.

Note that Dillard is almost perfectly horizontal: if we use a protractor, Dillard's box is at 0°, and Powell's at about 100°. That is a major translation for a change of perspective between the 2 images that doesn't appear to be superior to 20° on the horizontal plane.

More over, the change of perspective between Dillard and Powell is anti clockwise (tilted to the left), while the suggested movement of the box (allegedly caused by this change of perspective) is clockwise (left to right).

See below:

 

On 4/30/2024 at 3:20 PM, Christian Toussay said:

 

..Look at the Dillard enlargements I posted: the Dillard box on the left is actually touching the windowsill. And in the processed results from Powell, that is the case too, as I show below.

It is on the same horizontal plane than the box corner visible on the right.

The GIF simply shows the theorical movement of the box from one image to another: what I am saying here is that this movement is impossible, optically speaking.

Note that Dillard is almost perfectly horizontal: if we use a protractor, Dillard's box is at 0°, and Powell's at about 100°. That is a major translation for a change of perspective between the 2 images that doesn't appear to be superior to 20° on the horizontal plane.

More over, the change of perspective between Dillard and Powell is anti clockwise (tilted to the left), while the suggested movement of the box (allegedly caused by this change of perspective) is clockwise (left to right).

See below:

 

T

Edited Thursday at 02:42 AM by Richard Bertolino

[Christian Toussay]

On 5/1/2024 at 6:40 AM, Richard Bertolino said:

The Gif is illustrative, but it doesn't prove anything. I think Pat Speer said that it "demonstrated" something, not that it proved anything. Of course, a sophisticated and intelligent editor could have faked both photos to make them seem consistent.

 

Yep.  I am actually quite surprised that this "translation hypothesis" to explain the Dillard / Powell discrepancy has ever been seriously considered. It indicates to me either a complete misconception of optical laws, or a voluntary intention to deceive.

 

To close this interesting point, I post below crops of both original pictures establishing that, actually, the box doesn't move between the 2 pictures:

 

 

So the GIF, and the explanation it purports to illustrate, is proved wrong.

This should never have been an issue to begin with.

Let me preempt now the only argument that critics could now try to put forth:

"Well those previously invisible boxes were made visible by the change of perspective, which modifies light distribution in the windows."

Yeah, that seems smart, except that it is not. The amount of light getting into a finite set will not vary with the observer 's position. To obtain the apparent result seen in the original Powell, you would have to move the light source.

As it happens, the light source here is the sun...

I will stand thus by the results I have presented here: the discrepancy between the 2 images results from the suppression of the image of a DPD officer, captured in Powell about 20/30 seconds from the last shot, at a time when nobody, much less a Police officer, was supposed to be here.

Edited May 2 by Christian Toussay

[Christian Toussay]

 

...So we have seen how the BlackDogMen mystery has been solved: those men, wearing DPD uniforms, were deployed behind the retaining wall, to provide cover for the assassins behind the fence. This was rendered necessary because the knoll was, of the three shooter locations we have found in the record, by far the most exposed.

Those men were clearly visible and of course captured in films and pictures. They had to be suppressed. The results on the classic Betzner BDM presented here illustrates how that was done: blacking out, whitening out, and blur. The result of these manipulations created the BDM artifacts in Betzner and Willis 5. As I have already explained, the record once processed reveals many more BlackDogMen...

There were at least 2 men wearing DPD uniforms in close proximity to the wall corner.

I am posting below a rear view of the retaining wall, so as to indicate more precisely there position:

 

 

DPD n°1 has just been presented here: he is seen in Moorman bending over the wall at the exact moment of the head shot, and in Betzner.

I will now present images of the second BlackDogMan that can be identified with certainty, indicated in the image above as DPD n°2.

But first, I will have to disgress and show you a picture taken by Jim (?) Towner in the immediate aftermath of the assassination:

 

 

This image shows that a soda / Coke bottle was positioned on the wall very close to the corner.

The presence of this Coke bottle was much debated during the 70s, when the JFKA researchers (either pro or anti WC) did not have access to documents other than the WC (no FOIA) , and analysis of pictures (the films were not available yet) were actually all we have to try to dig deeper into the case. So every nook and cranny of the available photographic record was inspected and hotly debated. This bottle was even used as an explanation of the BadgeMan image by supporters of the WC conclusion at the time.

What will interest us is that its presence is documented and , as we see above, captured on film.

Now unless you believe that assassins would bring along drinks while waiting to assassinate the President, it would seem to me that this seemingly innocuous detail is worthy of attention. How come this Coke bottle is present on the crime scene?

There is only one testimony, by Marilyn Stitzman (Zapruder's secretary, present with him on the pedestal on the wall) which can explain this: she stated she saw a young Black couple, eating lunch and "drinking Cokes", sitting on a bench just behind the wall before the shooting. Conspiracy theorists, who did not have much to push their case at the time, were of course not happy with Mrs Stitzman's testimony, which was brought as an explanation for the presence of BlackDogMan.

As for me, I would think that the Towner picture verifies Stizman's testimony of "a young Black couple drinking Cokes", present at some point in time behind the wall, before the assassins' team got into position, because we actually have a picture of one of those Coke bottle.

I will post now a composite, showing three different images of DPD n°2 (the caption indicate "n°3" but I have explained why). That's quite a significant number. The fact that they come from different point of view, different time sequence and different material/support totally destroy the "random artifact" argument.

This composite was initially posted in the " Debunking the Pareidolia Argument" thread, but most people could not see it so here it is again. The image from Nix 16 will be used extensively in the analysis of the forgery of the Nix film:

 

 

Again, people believing that this composite can be explained using the optical illusion / pareidolia argument don't really understand, in my opinion, the major difference between "possibilities" and "probabilities". The high coherence between these three images absolutely destroy this.

I have no formal scientific training, so let me express this with my own words:

- this composite shows what I would call " a translation of corroborative elements from one picture to the other" with picture 1 (Betzner) directly linked (clothing / body position) to picture 2 (Nix 16), itself linking to picture 3 (Willis 5: clothing / Coke bottle).

Now of course, the second Coke bottle seen in Nix 16 and Willis 5 is a new discovery brought out by the process, and is a minor detail in the assassination lore. I have used it here only to exemplify that the process doesn't produce results out of thin air. The fact that it can retrieve the highly probable second bottle on the wall (last time I checked, a couple meant two people...) and at the same time retrieve the image of a DPD officer close to it, should lend much more credence to the latter:

 

 

OK, so I will post tomorrow other examples of BlackDogMen, retrieved from other pictures of the shooting...

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2 by Christian Toussay