Decoding Dallas: How They Fooled Us....

[Michael Crane]

Oh man,

Now it is oh so crystal clear.The man definately,positively has brown hair & brown eyes.He's stands 6'0 and weighs 170 pounds.

[Christian Toussay]

16 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Oh man,

Now it is oh so crystal clear.The man definately,positively has brown hair & brown eyes.He's stands 6'0 and weighs 170 pounds.

 

...Interesting contribution. Thank for your input.

 

You have either:

- superhuman visual skills

- or severely repressed homo erotic fantasy about big hulking men with brown eyes (known as the Jack Reacher Syndrome in specialized circles..)

 

I would go for the latter: I've heard some people really gets turned on by uniforms...

 

As stated, my patience with fools is limited. I value all serious questions about results or methodology and will respond to them.

I have no time for nor interest in junior school humor.

Edited May 9 by Christian Toussay

[Paul Brancato]

Christian - I appreciate what you are trying to reveal. I can’t say I always see what you see, but I don’t dismiss your work based on my own visual acuity. In fact, what you have concluded about shooters dressed as DP, or even DP officers in fact, is really the most logical assumption. It is the perfect cover, and is nothing new. I once posted, after a deep dive into timings and testimony, that officer Tippet could have himself been at the scene. It is not at all contradicted by his movements as we know them. Thanks to Joseph McBride we also know that he was a crack shot. And of course we know he was shortly thereafter killed. I’ve always thought that suspicious in itself, and think it’s highly likely that he was killed because, whether or not he was a shooter, he knew too much. 

[Michael Crane]

4 hours ago, Christian Toussay said:

As stated, my patience with fools is limited. I value all serious questions about results or methodology and will respond to them.

I have no time for nor interest in junior school humor.

 

May be you should try TikTok: from what I heard, children all around the world seem to be having a good time there....

You're killing me Smalls.

You have plenty of time.You don't have to lie to kick it.

Now,work on something else that brings us closer to the identity of the suspect.

Edited May 9 by Michael Crane

[Christian Toussay]

 

...I post below an extreme enlargement of the man n°1 we just saw in Zapruder film frame 472 :

 

 

Notice that this previously invisible image is enclosed within a semi circular whitish area, which bears no relation to the actual background of the image. These are traces of the forgery used to erase this man.

 

Below is a composite comparing the Z 472 image to that of Moorman, taken from a perfectly opposite point of view:

 

 

We will now analyze frame 462. Here is the original:

 

 

Again, we see the same incongruous small tree with dense dark foliage hiding from view the top of the picket fence.

Below are several results from the data bank of Z 462:

 

 

Note disappearance of tree limbs and foliage previously obscuring this precise area. Note also the presence, yet again, of a semi circular whitish blob surrounding the previously invisible image of this man.

 

 

 

And here is a detoured version, to close the argument:

 

 

There is still more to discover in Z 462 as far as forgery is concerned, so I will conclude this tomorrow.

 

[Christian Toussay]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Christian - I appreciate what you are trying to reveal. I can’t say I always see what you see, but I don’t dismiss your work based on my own visual acuity. In fact, what you have concluded about shooters dressed as DP, or even DP officers in fact, is really the most logical assumption. It is the perfect cover, and is nothing new. I once posted, after a deep dive into timings and testimony, that officer Tippet could have himself been at the scene. It is not at all contradicted by his movements as we know them. Thanks to Joseph McBride we also know that he was a crack shot. And of course we know he was shortly thereafter killed. I’ve always thought that suspicious in itself, and think it’s highly likely that he was killed because, whether or not he was a shooter, he knew too much. 

 

..Thanks for your interest.

The results that I am presenting here, of massive DPD participation / complicity in the shooting,and of complete forgery of the photographic and film record to hide it, have one strong quality that should not be overlooked: they solve a whole lot of problems / puzzles / mysteries in the case, when you apply simple logic, being the open-and-shut case against Oswald, the systematic mishandling of crucial evidence or the assassination of Oswald live on TV from the basement of the DPD station.

In science, the strength of a new theory is evaluated by its capacity at resolving previously unsolved problems...

As an example, my conclusion is that the "almost perfect plan" was derailed when Oswald, the intended patsy, was confronted alone in room by a DPD officer with his gun drawn, 90 seconds after the shooting, and managed to get out alive.

I do not believe for one second that this confrontation could have been a mere coincidence, now that I have seen the cleaned up pictures of the shooting showing the involvement of men in DPD attire.

Something went wrong there, and led to Tippitt being dispatched to find him, which was obviously not part of the original plan. How Tippitt reacted to these new, emergency instructions about finding Oswald might explain, I would think, why he was killed.

It is significant, I would think, that the DPD officer who stationed and honked in front of Oswald's lodging did not come out to knock on the door to inquire about Oswald. He just honked a few times and left. That is not what you would do if your mission is to find the patsy-at-large, essential for the conspiracy you are a part of.

So my interpretation is that Tippitt got cold feet at some point, or did not know the exact nature of the conspiracy he was involved in, and tried to back up off the deal, having failed to find Oswald, and that is why he was killed.

All the data in the Tippitt case shows that the DPD lied repeatedly, going so far as to forge documents, to explain the presence of Tippitt where he had no reason to be. The fact that the DPD went this far to hide the truth is another confirmation that the Dallas Police was a major player in the JFKA.

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by Christian Toussay

[Christian Toussay]

...OK, let's finish now the segment on the forgery of the Zapruder film.

 

But let's review the sequence first:

- I have found several dozen of photographic and film evidence of men wearing DPD officers directly involved in the shooting, some of them present on the Knoll both behind the wall and behind the fence

- I, logically, searched for potential eyewitnesses of these men

- I discovered (actually, re-discovered...) that the closest known witness to the area, Abraham Zapruder, actually went out of his way to tell the WC that there was "indication" of a second assassin. He did not say where this "indication" might be found. Nevertheless, the WC staff's answer establishes he knew Zapruder was talking about something he had filmed...

- Since the camera is entirely focused on the limousine during most of the film, the only place where any "indication" of a second assassin might be found are the few frames where he caught the extremity of the fence just before the extant film stops

- So I decided to process two frames, close enough to allow variations but not total modification or disappearance: so something visible in frame A should, given the known Laws of Physics, still be present in frame B in a coherent fashion , if the image being analyzed is real. I chose Z 462 and Z 472, separated by about half a second (0,6 sec actually), and presented the results

In summary: results obtained on pictures and films led us to an eyewitness's statement, which in turn led us to another set of positive  results, confirming the original ones.

Again, I would think people with sound mind would realize that this continuity in corroboration cannot be dismissed as being simply coincidental.

 

I post below a composite of Z 462 and Z 472.

This the correct time sequence. Note that the movement of the man is coherent with the time sequence, i.e, a bit more than half a second between the two frames:

 

 

I'd like to use Z 462 once again, to illustrate why it is important, as I am trying to convey here, that the photographic and film record be re-assessed using 21st Century tools and methods.

The last time this record was scientifically evaluated was in 1978: that is Jurassic Park compared to what we now have at our disposal.

I re-post below the original Z 462, just to illustrate the fact that, even without processing it, it still shows clear evidence of forgery, visible to the naked eye, now that we have already established that the small tree hiding the top of the fence is actually a Special FX.

It is also a good illustration of the difficulty of image analysis. This evidence has been sitting in plain view for 60 years. See if you can find it:

 

 

 

If you could not, there it is:

 

 

 

Here is a cropped enlargement:

 

 

Remember, we have already seen that:

- the apparent location of this "small tree", relative to Zapruder and the Fence, is highly suspect and doesn't correspond to what we see in other pictures and films

- this "small tree" actually disappears in the processed results, to reveal the image of two men behind the fence. This is also verified in identical fashion in Z 472

So what we see here is that, in the "original" / unprocessed frame, we still find direct evidence of forgery. Evidently, the alteration of dozens of successive frames could not be done in automated batch sessions in the 60s...

There are very probably many more instances of such slip-ups in the actual record. We should now be able to pick them up....

 

Ok, so up to the Nix film.

Because of its unique angle of vision capturing the Knoll, the Nix film is actually the piece of evidence which required the most alteration. The forgers could not simply "patch" unwanted details, as they did elsewhere: the Nix film necessitated a whole "remastering" to hide the truth.

Researchers of the Old guard type will remember that first the Nix film was "unavailable", then appeared in a severely cropped version cutting out anything above the wall, then later on in an incredibly dark version still hiding everything behind the wall and fence.

Evidently, there is something with the Nix film which should be of interest to serious researchers...

So that is what we are going to look into right now. But first, I will seek, if I may, contribution from members here about an important feature of the Nix film we are going to analyze.

I post below the original I worked with: frame 16 (my own count) of a clip of Nix I downloaded from YouTube:

 

 

"1", "2" and "3" are reference points that will be used later in the analysis.

 

What I am concerned about, is the whitish, rectangular artifact that is indicated below by a question mark:

 

 

Does anyone know what this is ?

On the right of it, we can see the infamous "Shooter in a White Shirt" that was debunked in the 70s.

But what about that whitish rectangular artifact?

I will wait a day or two for contributions / explanations / theories about this artifact, before posting results...

[Denise Hazelwood]

How They Fooled Us:

1. photo and film and X-ray alterations.

2. Media influence using CIA assets—see CIA memo and Carl Bernstein’s “The CIA and the Media,” e.g., Life magazine purchasing the Z-film.

3. Control of information to, and collusion with key members of, investigative bodies—e.g., WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, etc.—and use of attorneys more interested in appeasing government clients than getting at the truth.

4. Withholding important information—e.g., the documents that are still being withheld.

5. Taking advantage of people’s natural tendencies to not want to look like “kooks” when the (altered) photos and films contradict their recollections.

6. Taking advantage of people’s natural fears of retaliation if they speak out (e.g., the so-called “Death List”), perhaps even creating that fear (e.g., the shots fired at Roger Craig and Jim Garrison (although the latter is from the JFK movie rather than any firsthand accounts that I am aware of)

7. Refusing to “come clean” about what happened.

8. Denigration of critics as “Conspiracy Theorists” (and “kooks”) by media, and spreading to the public (related to #2 above).

 

Edited May 10 by Denise Hazelwood
Added #8 reason. Fixed typo.

[Paul Brancato]

Destroying documents - the Military was particularly guilty of this

[Denise Hazelwood]

Was there possibly something even worse than what I posted above? I am thinking specifically of the untimely and suspicious deaths of William Pitzer and Dorothy Kilgallen.

[Denise Hazelwood]

34 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Destroying documents - the Military was particularly guilty of this

So was the Secret Service. I am thinking specifically of the purported December, 1963 “Burn Party.”

[Paul Brancato]

14 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

So was the Secret Service. I am thinking specifically of the purported December, 1963 “Burn Party.”

I dIdnt know about the ‘burn party’. Can you say more? 

[Denise Hazelwood]

15 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I dIdnt know about the ‘burn party’. Can you say more? 

I don't remember my original source for this information, but a quick Internet search gave me these links:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5719939/november-22-1963-friday-assassination-research#google_vignette

https://archive.org/stream/UCSCJFKCourseWDanielSheehan/EXTENDED CHRONOLOGY_djvu.txt

Also mentioned in books Murder in Dealey Plaza and Matrix of an Assassination. Sorry, I don't have the page numbers.

The gist is that James Fox admitted to someone that he had seen a SS "burn party organized and ignited by SSA Robert Bouck (a trusted confidant of the Kennedy family) wherein Fox saw autopsy evidence (photographs, X-rays) being tossed into a bonfire. The mood was somber rather than festive. Happened sometime around December 7, 1963. That's about the extent of what I can tell you.

[Christian Toussay]

On 5/10/2024 at 6:45 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

How They Fooled Us:

1. photo and film and X-ray alterations.

2. Media influence using CIA assets—see CIA memo and Carl Bernstein’s “The CIA and the Media,” e.g., Life magazine purchasing the Z-film.

3. Control of information to, and collusion with key members of, investigative bodies—e.g., WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, etc.—and use of attorneys more interested in appeasing government clients than getting at the truth.

4. Withholding important information—e.g., the documents that are still being withheld.

5. Taking advantage of people’s natural tendencies to not want to look like “kooks” when the (altered) photos and films contradict their recollections.

6. Taking advantage of people’s natural fears of retaliation if they speak out (e.g., the so-called “Death List”), perhaps even creating that fear (e.g., the shots fired at Roger Craig and Jim Garrison (although the latter is from the JFK movie rather than any firsthand accounts that I am aware of)

7. Refusing to “come clean” about what happened.

8. Denigration of critics as “Conspiracy Theorists” (and “kooks”) by media, and spreading to the public (related to #2 above).

 

 

...Hi..

 

Yep, we  agree on all that.

The only point of my presentation on this Forum is to explain that " point n°1" can now be resolved: the true content of films and pictures which were forged to hide the truth can now be retrieved. And I believe Dr Mantik did a great job on the autopsy X-Rays. So evidence of forgery can now be established before a Court of Law. The results I presented on the Dillard and Powell pictures, for instance, are evidence of FBI / CIA tampering with the criminal evidence.

Researching this case for all those years, and coming from a non-American, European culture, I'd like to add this: there is a major difference in knowledge-filter  between US citizens and the rest of the world. We know that power struggles exist between competing elites, and that they can manifest outside of the democratic process, by violent means. We are not surprised by these types of events: our history is full of them.

But US citizens generally seem to be reluctant to believe that this could happen in their country. I think this myth of "It couldn't happen here"  is the major fuel of the "Oswald did it" supporters.

I also believe that the magnitude of the fraud that was played on them is so immense that, like in the Fable of the Emperor's Clothes, it is actually better and safer to pretend you still see the magnificent garment, and not the Emperor's naked ass...

I will present tomorrow results obtained on the analysis of the Nix film.

We have already seen a fake stack of boxes (Powell, hiding a DPD officer), a fake tree (Z 462 and 472, hiding two DPD officers), a fake occiput (autopsy picture, hiding a vertical, serrated occipital exit),  a fake sunlight spot on the fence (Nix, hiding a tree-man team of assassins behind the fence). 

But in the Nix film, the forgers had much work to do. Remember, we have already seen evidence of at least two men, wearing DPD uniforms, in close proximity to the wall corner:

- one near the extremity of the wall, close to the steps

- another one about 8 / 10 feet from the corner

Those men are seen from different angles, during different but coherent time sequences, using different cameras and films, so their presence is not under dispute. Thus it is interesting to review what the Nix film, which has captured during a long sequence the area of interest, will reveal.

The original shows nothing, as the image posted earlier shows. But there is nevertheless something interesting in this image, when we compared it to another image, showing the same area with a slightly different point of view:

I post below a composite of the wall section in Moorman, as compared to what is seen in Nix film frame 16. If I may suggest a very easy exercise, please just do this: just flip rapidly your gaze between the two images :

 

 

Of course, we acknowledge that the angle of sight is not identical between the two images. Nevertheless, the discrepancy does not correspond to optical / physical laws. There is simply no way Nix could have captured this perspective of the wall from his location, a perspective drastically different from Moorman's, seen just above...

 

Here is the same composite, both with some captions to facilitate the analysis:

 

 

Ok, so we have just compared Nix 16 to Moorman, and noticed several discrepancies, indicative of forgery.

Most notably, the perspective of the wall is very different in both pictures, almost perfectly flat in Moorman, and markedly tilted to the right ( about 20°) in Nix.

Just like we have demonstrated with the Dillard / Powell discrepancy, this significant difference in perspective cannot be explained away by the difference in angle of sight.

So since analysis of Moorman did not show any evidence of forgery on the wall perspective, the conclusion we arrive at is that images from the Nix film showing the wall were forged.

I will post tomorrow results supporting this statement.

[Christian Toussay]

 

Ok, so let us conclude this with the most brazen example of the fraud that took place in order to hide the truth: the Nix film.

We have already seen many examples of alteration and forgery in the record, but the Nix film, capturing both the wall and the fence during the shooting, is something else. Evidently, the men we have already seen in this presentation, two men wearing DPD unifoms, would have been captured in this film too. How they were suppressed and made invisible until now is what I am going to present here. If I were a concerned US citizen seeing this, I would be very angry.

  I used the word "remastering" when describing the forgery of the Nix film. The composite below explains why. It shows the evolution of Nix frame 16 from "original" to the final result. The odd perspective of the wall in the Nix film had always intrigued me, just as much as the very weird whitish rectangular artifact behind the wall, which doesn't correspond to the known background of the area.

So let's see what comes up, when we process Nix frame 16 :

 

 

Notice (iteration 5) totally unnatural neon-bluish hue on two specific areas:

- the terminal segment of the wall

- the location of the (formerly) whitish rectangular artifact

People who where able to access the images in the "Assassins behind the Fence" thread will remember that this same neon-bluish hue was also present in altered portions of the Nix film showing the fence assassins.

Note striking discrepancy in vertical alignment of terminal segment of wall between "original" and iteration 23 just below.

Notice also that, as the perspective of the wall changes between each iteration, the low bush running along the wall remains unchanged.

This means that the wall we see in the Nix film, and that we have been looking at and poring over for half a century, is actually a Special FX.

It has been painted over the original picture, to modify the perspective of the wall and allow for easier suppression of the unwanted images, i.e. those two DPD officers close to the wall corner.  The unexplainable rectangular white  artifact behind the retouched wall is simply a patch hiding DPD n°2, located about 6/8 feet from the wall corner, but that the forged perspective makes appear to be much farther down the wall...

I post below different composites, using different results from Nix 16 data bank, to support the above statement:

 

 

Notice Coke bottle visible on the left in processed frame:

 

 

 

 

Here is a crop of the man the forgers suppressed for more than half a century, by using Hollywood Special FX. Note details now visible:

- of course, the obnoxious Coke bottle on the left

- but also a sizable object on the right, close to his chest, which reflects light differently than his uniform

This could be some sort of communication device :

 

 

 

Below is a triple composite, showing the man just retrieved from Nix 16, compared to other images from the exact same area obtained from Betzner (left) and Willis 5 (right). Note high coherence between all three images.

Notice also that in Willis 5, the "sizable object" observed in Nix on the right appears to be right in front of his face:

 

 

So let's summarize here:

- when you compare the wall perspective in the Nix film to pictures taken from a different but quite similar point of view, like Moorman (see above), or Muchmore, there is a noticeable discrepancy. Actually the wall in Nix appears to be much longer than it really is, if we believe the perspective

- the processing of Nix film frames shows that in fact the weird perspective of the wall is artificial, and that the "whitish rectangular artifact" is a Special FX

Just like the Powell picture and its fake stack of boxes, the fake trees in Zapruder hiding the fence corner, or the fake hair in the autopsy picture.

The magnitude of the fraud seems almost unbelievable, now that it is crumbling, but remember:

- the techniques applied were the best of the times: think "The Ten Commandments" kind of stuff

- the forgers never thought that the altered films and pictures would be wildly available in the future

- the forgers never considered the fact that technological progress would make tools and methodologies capable of detecting their treachery available to concerned citizens decades later....

 

Alright, so the next thread will be about the science behind the results presented here. With the exception of somebody calling me a liar, with no argumentation, I appreciate that most expressed questions or skepticism were in a courteous way. One member stated that he could not understand how  the process could do what I claim it does: retrieve data invisible to the human eye. So the next thread will be about recognized scientific techniques and methodologies, which may not be known to those criticizing the results presented here, but are identical in conceptual frame, and very similar in operational modalities to what I am presenting here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 10:09 PM by Christian Toussay