Jump to content


Spartacus

Oswald Picture Not Faked


  • Please log in to reply
255 replies to this topic

#1 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,137 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 November 2009 - 05:14 AM

http://www.dartmouth...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.

#2 Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 06 November 2009 - 05:49 AM

It might not be a fake picture, but

1 How does a man stand at an angle that his body is in?

2. It's an obvious attempt to brand Oswald was a Marxist. Why would someone willingly pose with this incriminating stuff, especially when Oswald (Harvey) denied he shot anyone? If he came out and said I did it, it would be different. Wasn't there a point when Harvey knew he was being painted as a Commie?

3. If that's not Harvey, and I maintain it isn't him, it must be Lee Oswald (John Armstrong)


Kathy C

Edited by Kathleen Collins, 06 November 2009 - 05:50 AM.


#3 Adele Edisen

Adele Edisen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:38 AM

It might not be a fake picture, but

1 How does a man stand at an angle that his body is in?

2. It's an obvious attempt to brand Oswald was a Marxist. Why would someone willingly pose with this incriminating stuff, especially when Oswald (Harvey) denied he shot anyone? If he came out and said I did it, it would be different. Wasn't there a point when Harvey knew he was being painted as a Commie?

3. If that's not Harvey, and I maintain it isn't him, it must be Lee Oswald (John Armstrong)


Kathy C

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

Just a question. Has anyone here read A Deeper, Darker Truth yet? It covers the work of Tom Wilson and was written by Donald T. Phillips. Amazon has it for $25.15 (free shipping).

Adele

#4 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,058 posts

Posted 06 November 2009 - 07:07 AM

Just a question. Has anyone here read A Deeper, Darker Truth yet? It covers the work of Tom Wilson and was written by Donald T. Phillips. Amazon has it for $25.15 (free shipping).

Adele


It is being discussed here:

http://educationforu...showtopic=14895

#5 Robert Walker

Robert Walker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 07 November 2009 - 02:18 AM

All I have to say on this is: http://www.abovetops...hread411261/pg1

#6 Dean Hagerman

Dean Hagerman

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redding California
  • Interests:JFK assassination photo and film research, collecting rare and out of print books on the assassination.

Posted 07 November 2009 - 02:31 AM

Oh well if this guy says its not faked then that must be the final word :blink:

#7 Robert Walker

Robert Walker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 07 November 2009 - 03:35 AM

What I'd like to know is how this story got such deep penetration into the press. Who is pushing it?

#8 Guest_John Gillespie_*

Guest_John Gillespie_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 November 2009 - 06:23 AM

Oh well if this guy says its not faked then that must be the final word :blink:



Touche!

It is a non-issue, after all. He was the sole Fair Play For Cuba guy in New Orleans, allegedly shot at General Walker and espoused Marxist-Leninist views on the air. Oh, he lived in Russia, too. The photo was useful to Life Magazine and served its purpose in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, but as time passed - and especially after the Warren Report was released in all its glory - it became just another construct of the Oswald legend, whether real or faked. As Robert Walker asked, who is pushing this and why? That is the compelling and real issue. It usually is.

JG

Edited by John Gillespie, 17 November 2009 - 04:58 AM.


#9 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,058 posts

Posted 07 November 2009 - 08:46 AM

All I have to say on this is: http://www.abovetops...hread411261/pg1


Very interesting article. Why don't you post it on the Forum?

#10 Craig Lamson

Craig Lamson

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 November 2009 - 02:53 PM

All I have to say on this is: http://www.abovetops...hread411261/pg1


LOL! I love seeing people grasping at straws!

Why the "analysis' you linked, gets it wrong. They fail from the get go.

Why you can't resize different photos to compare the size of objects.

#11 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,137 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 November 2009 - 06:08 PM

Oh well if this guy says its not faked then that must be the final word :rolleyes:



Touche!

It is a non-issue, after all. He was the sole Fair Play For Cuba guy in New Orleans, allegedly shot at General Walker and expoused Marxist-Leninist views on the air. Oh, he lived in Russia, too. The photo was useful to Life Magazine and served its purpose in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, but as time passed - and especially after the Warren Report was released in all its glory - it became just another construct of the Oswald legend, whether real or faked. As Robert Walker asked, who is pushing this and why? That is the compelling and real issue. It usually is.

JG



First off, the case for conspiracy does NOT rest on proof of photo or film alteration.

And even if Oswald posed for the photo(s) and Marina took them all, and they are real and were not tampered with, how does that prove that Oswald is the lone assassin, as the story implies?

And even if Oswald was the lone assassin and posed for the incriminating photos, what was his motive, professional, political or psychological, because if he wasn't psycho, then he had criminal assistance, even if he did act alone.

More likely he was none of the above, and the photo was an integral aspect of Oswald being framed for the crimes, just as he claimed. Along with the rifle, the pristine bullet, the pistol, the shells and bullets and fingerprint on the rifle and sniper's nest cartons, the photos and the impersonators, all the basic evidence that implicates Oswald is too pat, and appears to have been staged and planted.

But the backyard photos certainly do provide clues, linking the principle, but not first suspect, with the alleged murder weapons, and the communist publications The Worker and the Militant.

Has anyone bothered to actually read the specific issues of the Militant or Worker that are in the photo?

Do they contain any articles about Castro or Cuba, about the CIA raider ships?

And why aren't these questions part of the story about the photos, and why is the story slanted to PROVE they are legitimate pictures and promoting the false illogical ergo that since they are real Oswald was the lone assassin?

So many questions, so little time,

Bill Kelly

#12 Martin Hinrichs

Martin Hinrichs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 November 2009 - 08:57 PM

Well, i don't know what the professors intention is, but the result is wrong.
The head model is pretty good (ears are wrong) but what happend to the rest of the body?
No more budget?

Stork legs?

Every 3D novice can place a light source at a location to make sure the shadow on a 3D face model looked like that. :rolleyes:
He showed no wireframe, no view from the left or the right.
What is the distance to the pole and the fence behind? How high is the the fence? Actually measured in Neely?
No word mentioned.

What about the correct Longitude/Latitude (coordinates) from Neely street?
No word mentioned.

To complain an incomplete work as a convincing result is somehow an insult of a professor status.

It appears to be easy: Place a professor in front of the camera, let him claim positive evidence of Oswald's guilt and you got
the great stage.

It is scarying how powerful the coverup machine is working yet. /o\

Martin

#13 Craig Lamson

Craig Lamson

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 November 2009 - 09:22 PM

Well, i don't know what the professors intention is, but the result is wrong.
The head model is pretty good (ears are wrong) but what happend to the rest of the body?
No more budget?

Stork legs?

Every 3D novice can place a light source at a location to make sure the shadow on a 3D face model looked like that. :rolleyes:
He showed no wireframe, no view from the left or the right.
What is the distance to the pole and the fence behind? How high is the the fence? Actually measured in Neely?
No word mentioned.

What about the correct Longitude/Latitude (coordinates) from Neely street?
No word mentioned.

To complain an incomplete work as a convincing result is somehow an insult of a professor status.

It appears to be easy: Place a professor in front of the camera, let him claim positive evidence of Oswald's guilt and you got
the great stage.

It is scarying how powerful the coverup machine is working yet. /o\

Martin


Here's the guys cv Martin.

http://www.cs.dartmo...du/farid/cv.pdf

He seems very well versed in the subject. A bit more than you perhaps?

Not that he can't make a mistake, but why not questiuon him first before getting your shorts in a bunch? Or is it that this man just might blow your flawed study clean out of the water?

#14 Craig Lamson

Craig Lamson

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 November 2009 - 09:25 PM

Well, i don't know what the professors intention is, but the result is wrong.
The head model is pretty good (ears are wrong) but what happend to the rest of the body?
No more budget?

(snip)

Martin


Heres more for you Martin...

http://www.pbs.org/w...ow/0301/03.html

#15 Martin Hinrichs

Martin Hinrichs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 November 2009 - 09:39 PM

Well, i don't know what the professors intention is, but the result is wrong.
The head model is pretty good (ears are wrong) but what happend to the rest of the body?
No more budget?

(snip)

Martin


Heres more for you Martin...

http://www.pbs.org/w...ow/0301/03.html


Thanks Craig, will take a look at your link. :rolleyes:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users