Dean Hagerman Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I posted this under the Fair use act for research purposes only Craig if you want to see more of Toms work I can scan it and send it to you in a PM or Email Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) And Jacks right I should have put the If before the date, Toms point was that the time and date dont match the Warren Commisions date of the photos, which makes the case that the Back Yard photos are fake. My fault Edited December 5, 2009 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) I posted this under the Fair use act for research purposes only Craig if you want to see more of Toms work I can scan it and send it to you in a PM or Email Dean Thanks Dean, this will be fine. Two lines tell me all I will ever need to know about Tom Wilson. "image processing quickly revealed.... a military -style spit shine..." Because Toms findings....at odds...time of day...now in question. Crackpot. Edited December 5, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Wilson was a fool or a fraud at 9:12 AM on March 31, 1963 the sun's azimuth was 110.7 degrees (east of north), i.e. ESE. Any shadows would be at the opposite angle 290.7 i.e. WNW. But the house was to the north and the shadow was is slightly east of due north and thus was taken shortly after solar noon (12:32).At the time Wilson claimed the suns angle was 35.6 degrees thus we would expect a shadow to be almost twice as long as the object itself but we see the opposite LHO’s shadow is less than half his height once again indicating a photo taken around noon. You can appeal to Wilson’s false and unproven authority all you want this is very basic geometry, even if one doesn’t trust the data from the sites below, it is indisputable that 1) the sun rises in the east at about 0 degrees angle, thus shadows are very long and point west 2) the sun will reach it’s maximum angle at solar noon at which time it will point directly towards the equator (i.e. due south in the northern hemisphere) 3) thus as solar noon approaches shadows will shorten and veer northwards 4) the sun sets in the west at an angle of about 0 degrees 5) thus as the day progresses from (solar) noon to sunset angles will lengthen and veer eastwards This has nothing to do with the date there is no date, not in November or any other month when a photo taken at 9:12 AM would produce shadows that point east or be so short. Sun angle data from http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php Matching data can be found here http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astr...fl=-1&day=1 due E = 90, S = 180, W = 270, N = 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin Why do I get the feeling that as they say here in Brazil you will post that the video "on St. Never's Day" or "when the chicken grows teeth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The thing is Martin, Craig and I asked you distinct questions. It shouldn't take you much time to respond to mine if you had a good answer. How did you determine what the sunangle "should" have been without knowing the time of day?PS - You said it should have been 33.6 degrees which implies knowing with in minute when the photo was taken. However that was the angle at around 4PM while the azimuth of the shadow indicates a time closer to noon. Len, as i implied earlier in this thread, i will create a short video. Let's say a graphic animation which should describe and cover all the about the suncycle in Neely on november 22 and the related shadows. The idea is to upload it onto Youtube then (what i've never done before) This will descibe all what i mean in a very simple but consistent form without misinterpretations/misunderstandings. You appear to me intelligent but nevertheless you didn't understood it at first. Thats the reason why i will do this video. To make sure everybody understand it. Look, i've seen many Topics here and elsewhere with endless discussion over 60-70 pages where almost every uninvolved visitor is getting bored sooner or later. But more worst, most of them did not reveal who is right and who is wrong . Such a endless discussion is certainly the last thing i will. Short, crisp and convincing is what i like. Len, you have no other chance than to wait. Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget. If it makes you feel good, then so be it. best Martin Why do I get the feeling that as they say here in Brazil you will post that the video "on St. Never's Day" or "when the chicken grows teeth" That was unfair and you know it. I'll keep this in mind! Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Martin "unfair" is in the eye of the beholder but as Milton Friedman said “being right is the best revenge”, prove me wrong by completing your video well before the date I predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) Well now I see a face in Huges, although I cant see how the facial features would be that clear As far as the other two I still cant see anything First you have your outlines going through objects, second you also have your outlines traced around blank space when there is nothing to trace Sorry Frantz im not sold on your work Please keep posting what you have done and try posting the full pictures first then post the close up so we have a better idea of where we are looking, and for me if its a spot that I or other researchers have already spotted something Thanks Dean ...thks for yr reply, Dean. I'll try to answer the points you raised: *the clarity of details in the Hughes frame: I cannot explain it, that's why I suggested in my initial post that this may pertain to some neglected property of the photographic medium. Experts should know, but, indeed, some results are stunning. That so much information could be retrieved so far away from the original source is very intriguing. If you take as a reference point the window frame, you can see that the man has his head fully outside the window. Optical illusions do not suffer enlargements gladly: try it on this one, you'll see that the image remains coherent... *outlines going thru objects: you refer to the DalTex Shooter (right corner pix): the object is actually the fire staircase that partially hides the window *outlines around empty space: I said it was a rough outline... *posting full pix: I work with very heavy files, and I understand there is a limitation to how much you can post here. That's why I suggested that anyone interested in this contact me, I'll be glad to share... I'll give it one more try, and post below a larger crop showing the Picket Fence team, located approximatively 10 feet from the corner of the fence, parallel to the retainig wall. Scale is the biggest difficulty in photo interpretation, so I have tried to make it easier: *"Top of Picket Fence" indicates just that, the top of the Picket Fence... *number "1" and "2" are placed just above the head of the two individuals standing behind the fence *so, if I am correct, what you should be seing in the space between "1" and "Top of", respectively, and "2" and "Picket fence", are the head, shoulders and upper torso of any such individual of average height. Give it a try, it will be worth your time... Man n°1 is usually easier to visualize, and will give you a scale reference Once again, these are raw results, with no retouching whatsoever. The intriguing pink / flesh tone on part of man n°1's face is not an addition. Edited December 11, 2009 by Frantz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Frantz I'm not sure whether you are a prankster or a bit eccentric but your studies look more like mold samples or bad computer art than anything else and are absolutely useless as tools to understanding the assassination. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 (edited) Thanks, Jack. Nice point. I did indeed mean "censure" and not "censor". I have now written (twice) the President of Dartmouth about this disgrace: Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:57:36 -0600 [12/10/2009 11:57:36 AM CST] From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu To: President's.Office@Dartmouth.edu Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu Subject: The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco Jim Yong Kim, M.D., Ph.D. Dartmouth College Office of the President 207 Parkhurst Hall Hanover, NH 03755 Dear President Kim, Having written to you about a matter of importance in relation to the reputation and integrity of the institution over which you preside, I have been acutely disappointed to have received no acknowledgment of my letter, in which I offered a modest proposal for redeeming what can be redeemed of Dartmouth's involvement in this photographic fiasco. I have now co-authored an article about it with Jim Marrs, author of CROSSFIRE (1989), one of the principal sources for the film "JFK" by Oliver Stone, which we have recently published in OpEdNews, The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco by Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTM...091116-941.html where a google search on the title discloses a certain degree of interest, FIRST PAGE: 1. OpEdNews - Article: THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO A Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, claims that it is 'extremely unlikely' that backyard photographs of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald are fake ... www.opednews.com/.../THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html - Cached 2. OpEdNews - Page 7 of Article: THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO Page 7 of Article: Article: A Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, claims that it is 'extremely unlikely' that backyard photographs of accused assassin ... www.opednews.com/.../THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html - Cached Show more results from www.opednews.com 3. THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO BY DR. JAMES FETZER, WITH COMMENTS ... Nov 23, 2009 ... The Internet has buzzed with news that "the infamous backyard photos" of Lee Harvey Oswald have been found to be "authentic" through digital ... esciencenews.com/.../the.dartmouth.jfk.photo.fiasco.by.dr.james.fetzer.with.comments - Cached 4. THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO - The Education Forum 15 posts - 7 authors - Last post: Nov 20 THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO Author: Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs Description: A Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, claims that it is ... educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15017 - Cached 5. CONSPIRACY SCOPE: THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO Nov 20, 2009 ... Anti-Illuminati Blog · THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO · Internet Under Siege · CIA's "Great Pretense" Exposed in State-Secrets Fr.. ... conspiracyscope.blogspot.com/.../dartmouth-jfk-photo-fiasco.html - Cached 6. THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO Author: Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs ... 19 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Nov 20 Article : THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO > > Author: Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs. Stop right there IT'S A HOAX ! 200% SURE FIRE ! ... groups.google.com/group/alt...jfk/browse.../48fbc686b1e9da2c?lnk... - Cached 7. Andy Plesser: Iconic Lee Harvey Oswald Photo is no Fake, Dartmouth ... Nov 5, 2009 ... THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs Description: A Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, claims that it is ... www.huffingtonpost.com/.../iconic-lee-harvey-oswald_b_346990.html - Cached 8. American Historical Association Blog: Remembering JFK ? November ... Click on 'search' at Op Ed News and type in: "The Dartmouth JFK Photo Fiasco" by Dr. Fetzer and Jim Marrs. You'll see why many researchers are concerned ... blog.historians.org/resources/.../remembering-jfk--november-22-1963 - Cached 9. Iconic Lee Harvey Oswald Photo Authentic, Says Forensics Expert "THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO by Dr. James Fetzer, Jim Marrs, et al: http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTM...FI-by-Jim-Fetze. ... www.scientificblogging.com/.../iconic_lee_harvey_oswald_photo_authentic_says_forensics_expert - Cached 10. Open Discussion - 9/11 Scholars Forum The latest installment of HS that's appeared on the JFK front is from a ... Jim Marrs and I published "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco" at OpEdNews, ... 911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/open.../showLastReply - Cached SECOND PAGE: 1. Rosalee Grable - FriendFeed OpEdNews - Page 4 of Article: THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO ... OpEdNews - Page 4 of Article: THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO ... friendfeed.com/webfairy - Cached - Similar 2. Digg Photo News ? 69th Edition « Photo News From Digg.com ... Nov 18, 2009 ... THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO A Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, claims that it is ?extremely unlikely? that backyard photographs ... www.fastcashphoto.com/2009/11/digg-photo-news-69th-edition/ - Cached 3. Lee Harvey Oswald: a Modern, Updated Biography Nov 20, 2009 ... JFK Kennedy Assassin 1963 marrs lee harvey oswald jack ruby warren ... of issues listed: viz Op Ed News: THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO URL= ... www.scribd.com/.../Lee-Harvey-Oswald-a-Modern-Updated-Biography - Cached 4. Lee harvey oswald - surchur Dartmouth College digital forensics expert Hany Farid built a 3-D model of Oswald's .... THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO Category: Political News Diggs: 1 ... surchur.com/all/lee+harvey+oswald - Cached 5. Sign Language On A Mobile Phone Aug 21, 2008 ... "THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO by Dr. James Fetzer, Jim Marrs, et al: http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE..." "While the response does not ... www.scientificblogging.com/.../sign_language_on_a_mobile_phone - Cached 6. CONSPIRACY SCOPE: Charles Manson and the Crushing of the Counter ... Oct 29, 2009 ... Anti-Illuminati Blog · THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO · Internet Under Siege · CIA's "Great Pretense" Exposed in State-Secrets Fr.. ... conspiracyscope.blogspot.com/.../charles-manson-and-crushing-of-counter.html - Cached 7. Canadian diplomat alleges troops in Afghanistan were complicit ... Nov 20, 2009 ... The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco<http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fet zer-091116-941.html> By Jim Fetzer, ... groups.google.com/group/misc.activism.../861572d855742d23 - Cached 8. Professor finds that iconic Oswald photo was not faked (w/ Video) Nov 5, 2009 ... (PhysOrg.com) -- Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a ... The fact that we supported the fiasco is what he was talking about. ... Rumour had it that JFK's pappy was involved with ... www.physorg.com/news176643721.html - Cached 9. Jim Marr - United Kingdom - Email, Address, Phone number ... jamesfetzer: The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco. 123people refers to websites and blogs which mention or quote Jim Marr. If you are Jim Marr and don't want to ... www.123people.co.uk/s/jim+marr 10. News & Additions to the Whale [2009 Nov] THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO By Jim Fetzer · [2009 Dec] AIDS Day Scam: Doc Exposes Vaccine Cult Conspiracy by MIKE ADAMS ... www.whale.to/additions.html - Cached - Similar There is more, but I presume you get the idea. This has cast a considerable cloud over the reputation of the institution you head. A new study, moreover, demonstrates that even Farid's research on the shadow was not properly done: Brane Space: Hany Farid's Pixelated Illusions http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/ha...-illusions.html Now it is my understanding from this article that Hany Farid receives funding from the FBI, which misled the nation--at the direction of J. Edgar Hoover--about the state of evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It is my suspicion that the FBI suggested to Hany Farid that he should publish a piece on the "backyard photographs" in furtherance of its efforts to confuse the public regarding what is known about the true causes of the death of JFK. As the president of an institution I have long admired, I hereby request that: (a) you formally acknowledge the receipt of this and my previous letter to you; and, ( advise me as to what concrete steps you intend to take to straighten it out. As a graduate of Princeton '62, I would note that this, alas!, is not what most would regard as an appropriate example of "Dartmouth in the nation's service". With appreciation, Jim James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. McKnight Professor Emeritus University of Minnesota Duluth http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ 800 Violet Lane Oregon, WI 53575 Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu: Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:47:48 -0600 [11/08/2009 09:47:48 AM CST] From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu To: President's.Office@Dartmouth.edu Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu Subject: About Hany Farid: A Modest Proposal . . . Jim Yong Kim, M.D., Ph.D. Dartmouth College Office of the President 207 Parkhurst Hall Hanover, NH 03755 Dear President Kim, As you are no doubt aware, a member of your faculty, Hany Farid, has entered into a long-standing dispute over the authenticity of photographs--know as "the Oswald backyard photographs"--related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. A summary of his claims, which are creating a sensation with some segments of the public but dismay among serious students of the photos and films, may be found at The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/h...862.html&cp Unfortunately there are multiple photos and multiple indications that they are faked, where Farid's analysis dealt with only the shadows of one. He clearly had not taken the time to conduct a search of the literature or he would have discovered that there are at least three photographs, not just one, and that oddities about shadows are only one of many indications of fakery. Presenting only evidence favorable to your position is known as "special pleading", which I spent 35-years teaching freshmen to avoid. Even if he were right about the specific shadows on which he chose to work, that could not possibly justify the claim that the "photo" is authentic, because he did examine other shadows in the original nor the many additional features of concern to serious students of JFK. Farid has thus violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account. Farid did a digital study of a non-digital photograph. Various features may have been obscured in the process of transformation. The chin of the figure in the "backyard photographs" is a block chin, not Oswald's chin, which was rather pointed and had a cleft. There is a clear insert line between the chin and his lower lip, and his finger tips appear to have been cut off. There are many features beyond the shadows he studied that indicate these photos were faked. This, alas!, is not the quality of research that the public expects of a member of the faculty at Dartmouth. Here is a summary addressing two of the photos--there turn out to have been at least three, as Farid could have found simply by googling "the Oswald 'backyard' photographs"--including testimony that Jack White, a legendary photo-analyst, presented to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) when it reinvestigated the case in 1977-78 but which it chose to disregard: http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html In 1992, I organized a research group of the best qualified individuals to ever study the case, including Robert B. Livington, a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics; and David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board-certified in radiation oncology, who would discover that the JFK autopsy X-rays have been altered and who has become the world's leading expert on his death. Our objective was to take rumor and speculation out of the case and place its study on an objective and scientific foundation. Other members of this group included Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was present during efforts to revive JFK at Parkland Hospital and then, two days later, was responsible for the treatment of his accused assassin, Lee Oswald; Jack White, whom I have mentioned above; and John P. Costella, Ph.D., whose specialization is electromagnetism and who is the leading expert on the Zapruder home-movie in the world today. He has a tutorial about this at http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/. A professional philosopher of science and former Marine Corps officer, I have chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the death of JFK and have published three collections of studies by experts on different aspects of the case. My books feature the research of Livingston, Mantik, Crenshaw, White, Costella and others. I maintain web sites that discuss the case at assassinationscience.com and at assassinationresearch.com, a journal for advanced study of the death of JFK that I currently co-edit with John Costella. Among my many lectures about JFK, including ones at Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge, the Cambridge lecture was peer-reviewed and published in the International Journal of the Humanities. It addresses the simple question of where JFK was hit in the back: at the base of the neck, as THE WARREN REPORT (1964) asserts, or about 5 1/2 inches below the collar? This is a simple question with vast ramifications. It is entitled, "Reasoning about Assassinations", and is also easily accessible via google. The answer to this question resolves the long-standing debate about the so-called "magic bullet" theory, on which the government's official account depends. During a conference on JFK held at the University of North Dakota, "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", 25-27 September 2008, I addressed what we know about the assassination and made a Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that I was discussing. The papers from the meeting have been published as a book, which has been made available on-line for ease of access. As an indication of the seriousness of the event, the keynote speaker was Theodore Sorensen, who was JFK's most important aide. I turned my Powerpoint into my chapter, which discusses our findings in relation to the physical, medical, and photographic evidence. It can be downloaded as a pdf. http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ I was introduced by John Tunheim, now a federal judge in Minneapolis, who served as the chair of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), a five-member civilian panel with the authority to declassify documents and records related to the assassination from the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and other agencies. They succeeded in declassifying some 60,000 documents and records, where their work is discussed in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). I feature one of the backyard photos already on the second page of my chapter, including a proof of fakery by Jack White based upon the newspapers that the figure is holding, whose dimensions are known. They show that this person is only 5'6" tall, while Oswald was 5'10" tall. If Hany Farid had conducted a search of the literature, he should have easily discovered it. My purpose in writing, however, is to suggest that Dartmouth has a unique opportunity to contribute to the public interest by resolving this issue. It would be unfortunate if the college were to have its reputation permanently tarnished by Farid's research. If you consider it appropriate, I recommend creating a panel to review his work, settle the issue, and thereby reaffirm Dartmouth's integrity. If you decide to do this, let me know if I can help. Incidentally, I should mention that, after founding the journal, MINDS AND MACHINES, which I edited for ten years, I invited Jim Moor of your Department of Philosophy to succeed me. We co-edited the journal for a year, after which Jim has been editing it on his own--and doing an exceptional job! You are welcome to ask him about me, since (although it is hard to believe) we have known each other for more than 35 years! With best wishes, Jim James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. McKnight Professor Emeritus University of Minnesota Duluth http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ 800 Violet Lane Oregon, WI 53575 Here is a nice piece discussing indications that the photo(s) are faked, where Farid's analysis dealt with only one. He clearly had not taken the time to conduct research, or he would have discovered that there are multiple indications of fakery, not just one. So even if he were right about the shadows, he would be wrong about the photo(s). Consider these: http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html I presented a lecture on JFK that features the backyard photograph during the most recent conference on JFK held at the University of North Dakota. The papers from the meeting have been published as a book, which is now on-line for ease of access. My chapter is the last and can be downloaded as a pdf. I discuss the backyard photo already on the second page: http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ Not only has a Dartmouth professor gone far beyond the scope of his competence by offering an opinion for which he has virtually no proof but, if he had only conducted a search of the literature, he would have known that many issues are involved here beyond the shadows. This is sloppy research on a topic of immense public interest. Dartmouth should censor him. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/h...862.html&cp http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.htmlDartmouth 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. Jim...I think you meant censure, not censor. We are all for free speech, no matter how dumb it is. Jack Edited December 12, 2009 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Frantz Toussay Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) FrantzI'm not sure whether you are a prankster or a bit eccentric but your studies look more like mold samples or bad computer art than anything else and are absolutely useless as tools to understanding the assassination. Len Len, I am neither one nor the other. Infra red pictures and films also look very different from usual pix and film, and they nevertheless contain very pertinent information used daily by law agencies, armed forces, etc.... Same goes for X-rays,which don't represent the "reality" of what we see with our own eyes, but do contain very pertinent and useful information. So don't let the appearance of the images bother you, you should concentrate on the information contained within. You should, I think, refrain from forming a definitive opinion without having tested the methodology I described, or without examining the material I proposed to make available. As explained, I posted on purpose a result obtained on the Moorman pix (Relman Morin version) to show the type of enhancement that can be achieved. The image, showing the back head wound, is not controversial because it shows no possible shooters or accomplices, so you should be able to see very clearly the tremendous information gain derived from the process I use, just by comparing what I posted to your best version of Moorman. Do this, and let me know if you still think the process I described has no value.... I am posting a different crop ,of man n°1 of the Fence team: again, raw results, no retouching. The colors are not manually added... If you look carefully you will notice that the man is wearing glasses, and that you can actually see the part where the temple piece attaches to the glass frame. You will probably also notice the expression on the man's face as JFK's head explodes... That's what I mean when I say that the enhancement obtained is intriguing. Edited December 16, 2009 by Frantz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 FrantzI'm not sure whether you are a prankster or a bit eccentric but your studies look more like mold samples or bad computer art than anything else and are absolutely useless as tools to understanding the assassination. Len Len, I am neither one nor the other. Infra red pictures and films also look very different from usual pix and film, and they nevertheless contain very pertinent information used daily by law agencies, armed forces, etc.... Same goes for X-rays,which don't represent the "reality" of what we see with our own eyes, but do contain very pertinent and useful information. Except that useful X-rays and infra-red images are prepared and interpreted by trained people following a set methodology you on the other hand admit that you amateur playing around with low level consumer software and don't really know what you are doing. "So don't let the appearance of the images bother you, you should concentrate on the information contained within." Therein lies the problem there isn't any useful info "You should, I think, refrain from forming a definitive opinion without having tested the methodology I described" You meaning playing around with DP images beyond recognition until I imagine I've conjured up some useful info,its like an interactive Rorschach test "...or without examining the material I proposed to make available." That's a novel way to dispel criticism, tell your critics to "refrain from forming a definitive opinion" till they've reviewed material you haven't posted yet As explained, I posted on purpose a result obtained on the Moorman pix (Relman Morin version) to show the type of enhancement that can be achieved.The image, showing the back head wound, is not controversial because it shows no possible shooters or accomplices, so you should be able to see very clearly the tremendous information gain derived from the process I use, just by comparing what I posted to your best version of Moorman. Do this, and let me know if you still think the process I described has no value.... I am posting a different crop ,of man n°1 of the Fence team: again, raw results, no retouching. The colors are not manually added... If you look carefully you will notice that the man is wearing glasses, and that you can actually see the part where the temple piece attaches to the glass frame. You will probably also notice the expression on the man's face as JFK's head explodes... That's what I mean when I say that the enhancement obtained is intriguing. Sorry the value of your method seems to existonly in your imagination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Martin, I imagine you will complain I’m being “unfair” again but… Nov 24 (23 for me) - YOU: “I consider to make a graphic animation (movie) which describes simply what the suncycle did on march 31, 1963 in Neely street in case there is interest at all.” Nov 28 -ME: “Martin your claims have been shown to be faulty. You should either defend them or retract them.” YOU: “Len, i don't what you do the whole day. But i'am working. And this the some 18 hours each day these weeks. When i have the time (and i take all i need) i show the forum members (not in particular you) that i'am absolutely correct.” Despite claiming to be too busy to post the sun cycle video you found the time to frequently visit the forum and post 5 times though Dec 4 so I asked you again and you told me to “Bump it up from time to time to make sure i don't forget” Since then you’ve found the time to frequently visit the forum and post 5 more times. In the 22 days since you said you’d post your “graphic animation (movie)” you’ve found the time to frequently visit the forum and post 12 times. The only thing it seems you don’t have time for is this simple video. Ironic that when I indicated it would be a long time coming you complain I was being "unfair" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 FrantzI'm not sure whether you are a prankster or a bit eccentric but your studies look more like mold samples or bad computer art than anything else and are absolutely useless as tools to understanding the assassination. Len Len, I am neither one nor the other. Infra red pictures and films also look very different from usual pix and film, and they nevertheless contain very pertinent information used daily by law agencies, armed forces, etc.... Same goes for X-rays,which don't represent the "reality" of what we see with our own eyes, but do contain very pertinent and useful information. So don't let the appearance of the images bother you, you should concentrate on the information contained within. You should, I think, refrain from forming a definitive opinion without having tested the methodology I described, or without examining the material I proposed to make available. As explained, I posted on purpose a result obtained on the Moorman pix (Relman Morin version) to show the type of enhancement that can be achieved. The image, showing the back head wound, is not controversial because it shows no possible shooters or accomplices, so you should be able to see very clearly the tremendous information gain derived from the process I use, just by comparing what I posted to your best version of Moorman. Do this, and let me know if you still think the process I described has no value.... I am posting a different crop ,of man n°1 of the Fence team: again, raw results, no retouching. The colors are not manually added... If you look carefully you will notice that the man is wearing glasses, and that you can actually see the part where the temple piece attaches to the glass frame. You will probably also notice the expression on the man's face as JFK's head explodes... That's what I mean when I say that the enhancement obtained is intriguing. Frantz, two things, firstly, just what am I supposed to be seeing here? and secondly, unless John or Andy have given you permission not to, could you please post a photo of youself as an Avitar, its Forum rules. if you are unsure how to do this PM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Haley Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Frantz, I'm finding your infra red images fascinating and hope you upload a few more for us to look at. You're bringing a fresh approach to photos everybody's been analysing for years. Make sure you add a photo of yourself as per forum rules so you can keep on contributing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now