Oswald Picture Not Faked

[Martin Hinrichs]

Nope Martin no crush, you asked me to keep bringing this up, and trust me I will continue to do so until you show that you were correct [which I don't think possible] or admit error [which I don't think you capable of] so this will continue for a very long time.

Let's not be desingenuous, you know very well what your error was, you said the sun angle should have been (IIRC) 33.6 degrees. That means you somehow calculated what time the photo was taken to the minute OR you mistakenly believed the angle would have been a constant that day.

Len, when i'am mistaken i have zero trouble to admit it. Did it several times on Duncan's forum.

Since i know you have some difficulties to understand the technical aspects of this happening, i will be

mild with my judging on you.

Martin

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Oswald's photo: I think it is probably legit and a part of the CIA sheepdipping he was going through to make it appear as if he were a pro-Castro Marxist and commie. Question: what are the names of the 2 newspapers in that photo and were they of different and completing Marxist schools of thought?

[John Dolva]

Well we know it's the Worker and the Militant, US-CPU and US-SWP.

Traditionally organs of competing groupings, but there were signs of fencemending and also ongoing unity over particular issues. For example while the Fourth International(SWP) is anti stalinist it defends the USSR.

They also unite on issues like the defense of Cuba.

Much of the COINTELPROs activities were to exploit differences and create them and capitalise on them. Divide and Rule. The photos are a rather jumbled piece of thinking that only needed to have an audience see Red, the finer points are not important from that regard, but, imo the disregard for it, or ignorance of it, is an indicator of the ''sheepdipping''.

edit add: also they are ''pristine'' (perhaps were wrapped in the sheet by the gate) which is not, to me, logical. When I get my hands on a copy it quickly becomes messed up as a newspaper does when one reads it. ie stage props, but imo poorly choosen ones if the intent was to convey a particular message except for a superficial one and I think in there lies a mistake that indicates the thinking of the conspirators.

Edited July 31, 2010 by John Dolva

[Len Colby]

Nope Martin no crush, you asked me to keep bringing this up, and trust me I will continue to do so until you show that you were correct [which I don't think possible] or admit error [which I don't think you capable of] so this will continue for a very long time.

Let's not be desingenuous, you know very well what your error was, you said the sun angle should have been (IIRC) 33.6 degrees. That means you somehow calculated what time the photo was taken to the minute OR you mistakenly believed the angle would have been a constant that day.

Len, when i'am mistaken i have zero trouble to admit it. Did it several times on Duncan's forum.

Since i know you have some difficulties to understand the technical aspects of this happening, i will be

mild with my judging on you.

Martin

Since I don't read his forum I have no way of knowing whether you really admit error there or not I've never seen you do so here. My guess is that you might admit to errors in fact but not in your judgement as a "3D photo expert".

The question is a very simple one and there is no reason for you not to answer if you had a good reply rather than continue to make excuses. No video or animation is required.

You claimed to have calculated what the sunangle "should" have been within 0.1 degrees. The problen is that the angle constantly changes over the course of the day, it would change 0.1 degrees every 36 seconds or so, Thus either you 1) figured out the time the photo was taken within a minute, 2) you otherwise determined what the angle "should" have been with such precision or 3) you made an error.

My money's on 3) but if 1) or 2) were correct what good reason would have for dragging this on for so long?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill Kelly has fallen for the Farid Fraud? Jim Marrs and I dispatched Farid's false claim a long time ago.

I thought he (Kelly) was current on these things. Check out "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", first here,

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html

Then here, "JFK Assassination. False Flag Attacks. How Patises are Framed. The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald",

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16224

Then here, "Flowing the Whistle on Dartmouth: Hany Farid "In the Nation's Service",

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16224

Then a follow-up article by Jerry Mazza, "Farid's Photo is a Real Fake. And so is he."

http://www.infowars.com/farids-photo-is-a-real-fake-and-so-is-he/

Plus a thread I started on this topic a long time ago. Did Bill miss the boat? Here's grist for the mill.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html

Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly was not altered.

“If we had found evidence of photo tampering, then it would have suggested a broader plot to kill JFK,” said Farid, who is also the director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth. “Those who believe that there was a broader conspiracy can no longer point to this photo as possible evidence.” Farid added that federal officials long ago said that this image had not been tampered with, but a surprising number of skeptics still assert that there was a conspiracy.

The study will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Perception.

Farid and his team have developed a number of digital forensic tools used to determine whether digital photos have been manipulated, and his research is often used by law enforcement officials and in legal proceedings. The tools can measure statistical inconsistencies in the underlying image pixels, improbable lighting and shadow, physically impossible perspective distortion, and other artifacts introduced by photo manipulators. The play of light and shadow was fundamental in the Oswald photo analysis.

“The human brain, while remarkable in many aspects, also has its weaknesses,” says Farid. “The visual system can be quite inept at making judgments regarding 3-D geometry, lighting, and shadows.”

At a casual glance, the lighting and shadows in the Oswald photo appear to many to be incongruous with the outdoor lighting. To determine if this was the case, Farid constructed a 3-D model of Oswald’s head and portions of the backyard scene, from which he was able to determine that a single light source, the sun, could explain all of the shadows in the photo.

“It is highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect forgery with the technology available in 1963,” said Farid. With no evidence of tampering, he concluded that the incriminating photo was authentic.

”As our digital forensic tools become more sophisticated, we increasingly have the ability to apply them to historic photos in an attempt to resolve some long-standing mysteries,” said Farid.

Edited August 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Bill Kelly has fallen for the Farid Fraud? Jim Marrs and I dispatched Farid's false claim a long time ago.

You, Marrs and that hack Mazza did nothing of the sort. Oh, you penned a lot of words, waved your hands mightly and proclaimed the matter setted, but you offer ZERO proofs that can withstand technical examination.

In fact the total lack of photographic knowlege presented to the dumb as bricks readers is simply mind numbing. No Fetzer all you haved done is parroted the technically inept claims without understanding a stitch of what you parroted.

Par for the the Fetzer course.

These really take the cake! Talk about ignorance of the highest level. He must have made the mistake of listening to Jack WHite...

"And the face has a square chin, not Oswald’s pointed chin; the finger tips of the right hand are cut off; and the figure is too short to be Oswald when the newspapers are used as an internal ruler. You can even see an insert line between the chin and the lower lip! But none of this impressed Professor Farid."

"I would claim the body shadow comes from that sinking sun and that those light sources exist because the photo was reconstructed on a “ghost mat” that came from the Dallas Police Department. It is a blank cut-out mat of Oswald’s body, in which pieces are reinserted. Sadly for the DPD those pieces were shot with the light at various angles. That’s what causes the conflicting shadows in the backyard photos, not my or his impairment."

What a complete hack! And of course Fetzer..ever the willing parrot fall hook, line an sinker....

The claims for the backyard photos being fake are simply silly on there face and are also a massive display of photographic ignorance. Maybe thats why they have such a rabid following amoung some gullible JFK CT's.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Since I don't read his forum I have no way of knowing whether you really admit error there or not I've never seen you do so here. My guess is that you might admit to errors in fact but not in your judgement as a "3D photo expert".

Hello Len,

although you are a relatively new member on Duncan's forum, i understand that you are not aware witnessing me admiting mistakes.

Ok, i give you one example.

I transfer this posting i made months ago on Duncan's forum to make sure you believe it.

What i'am gonna do now is to debunk my own claim on page 16, where i stated yesterday the linear shape in one Towner crop

might have been an antenna.

I mean this picture:

Ok, after a closer inspection today verifying and locating the photographers in different photos with the help

of the great POTP from Trask i come to following conclusions:

Here in this Bothun photo i've assigned the professionell photographers. All were riding in the motorcade and left their car except Altgens as far

as i know. Please correct me if i'am wrong.

So i did the same with the Jim Towner still afthermath photograph:

Attention: See second posting cause this forum is not capable to attach 3 images in one postings.

Please pay attention in particular to Craven. Craven was the man behind DCM at the moment Towner camera shutter operated.

It appears to me the time gap between Towner and Bothun is just a few seconds.

I would guess not more than 2-3 seconds.

The Bothun photo is taken a moment later than Towner, showing the same scene from different angles.

(Altgens for instance has walked down south 1-2 steps in Bothun and Craven some feet westwards)

If my observation is correct than we see DCM within a few seconds from different angles and in the same posture!

But he has nothing in his hands!!!

So my claim that we might see an antenna in Towner is obsolete.

I was wrong. I apologize.

The question is a very simple one and there is no reason for you not to answer if you had a good reply rather than continue to make excuses. No video or animation is required.

You claimed to have calculated what the sunangle "should" have been within 0.1 degrees. The problen is that the angle constantly changes over the course of the day, it would change 0.1 degrees every 36 seconds or so, Thus either you 1) figured out the time the photo was taken within a minute, 2) you otherwise determined what the angle "should" have been with such precision or 3) you made an error.

My money's on 3) but if 1) or 2) were correct what good reason would have for dragging this on for so long?

To be honest Len, i have my doubts you are really willing to listen to me, judging neutral and unbiased to my observations on the

backyard photos. Thats one of the reason why i more or less neglected your demand.

I have proven in the past to participate in controversial discussions whether it goes, without to neglect anybody as long

as the motivation of the participants are fair and agenda free.

Duncan's forum is my home forum since almost 2 years and i have participated and contributed a lot, i would say.

Duncan's forum is a pool of many LN'er (more than in any other forum) but nevertheless i had great discussions with many of them in respect

from both sides. I even PM and chatted with some of them in a very friendly way.

I believe some of these guys read here frequently and i hope i do not exaggerate.

You are one forum member of this forum who earned critique numerous times.

I say the main product you are selling here is doubt, negativeism, tactics games and even character assassinations.

I think you earned this critique for a reason.

I don't remember ever seen a posting from you in a constructive positve manner.

When you compliment somebody, you use this chance just to belittle or negate this person in the same posting. See

Pat Speer or Dean Heagerman lately.

Please prove me wrong on this matter, and i'am willing to discuss this subject with you in detail as i have done

so many times on Duncan's forum.

I'am very careful with my research time.

In order to find a vital wire to you, i give you a:

All the the best.

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

Attention! Missing image attachement:

By the way, the forum engine needs some improvements.