Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Picture Not Faked


Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

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,

(:D 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.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.

Jim...I think you meant censure, not censor. We are all for free speech, no matter how dumb it is.

Jack

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

..hi Chris... The version I worked with is from a clip I found on Youtube. It is the one, I believe, that comes from a 70's documentary critical of the WC: this segment was about the possibility that

Posted Images

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

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 by Frantz
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
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

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

My study with Jim Marrs has now been republished by GLOBAL RESEARCH

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16224 under the

title, "JFK Assassination. False Flag Attacks: How "Patsies" are Framed The

Case of Lee Harvey Oswald". I have also had an exchange with Dartmouth:

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: "Carol L. Folt" <Carol.L.Folt@dartmouth.edu>

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald

Carol L. Folt

Acting Provost and Dean of Faculty

Dartmouth College

Dean Folt,

How can you assert, "we have no reason to doubt the validity of

Professor Farid's research", when I have sent you proof that he

has committed enormous blunders and either did not even conduct

a literature search or presented false findings in spite of it?

I am most interested in who bears responsibility for the quality

of research at Dartmouth College. Since there could hardly be a

more blatant case of corruption, who enforces scholarly standards?

I have supposed that this duty fell to you. If not you, then who?

"The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasaco", a study I co-authored with Jim

Marrs, has now been republished by Global Research under the title,

"JFK Assassination. How 'Patsies are Framed': The Case of Lee Harvey

Oswald." I suggest you take the time to read it and think about it.

As a former commissioned officer in the Marine Corp with a thirty-

five-year career teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific

reasoning, I cannot imagine a greater abuse of position than this.

Do you suppose this illustrates "Dartmouth in the nation's service"?

In utter dismay,

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus

University of Minnesota Duluth

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Editor, Assassination Science (1998)

Editor, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000)

Editor, Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003)

800 Violet Lane

Oregon, WI 53575

Quoting "Carol L. Folt" <Carol.L.Folt@dartmouth.edu>:

Dear Professor Fetzer:

President Kim has referred to me your e-mail of December 10, 2009 concerning Professor

Hany Farid’s analysis of a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald.

As with most colleges and universities, Dartmouth College does not take institutional

responsibility for the scholarly activities of individual faculty members. While we

have no reason to doubt the validity of Professor Farid’s research, he alone is

responsible for it. If one scholar takes issue with another’s research methods or

conclusions, the traditional vehicle to express such concerns is through the open

scholarly literature.

Sincerely,

Carol L. Folt

Acting Provost and Dean of Faculty

Dartmouth College

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,

(B) 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.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.

Jim...I think you meant censure, not censor. We are all for free speech, no matter how dumb it is.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim...since the reply to you she said Dartmouth had no responsibility for the actions of its

professors...you should remind her that the imprimatur of the school was already on the

Farid study, since he was identified as a Dartmouth professor, backing him with the

college's reputation. Indeed, all headlines said DARTMOUTH PROFESSOR SAYS LHO

PHOTOS NOT FAKED. Without this use of the school prestige, what newspapers would

have headlined FARID SAYS LHO PHOTOS NOT FAKED...? No media outlet would

have used the story unless backed by the school reputation!

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim...since the reply to you she said Dartmouth had no responsibility for the actions of its

professors...you should remind her that the imprimatur of the school was already on the

Farid study, since he was identified as a Dartmouth professor, backing him with the

college's reputation. Indeed, all headlines said DARTMOUTH PROFESSOR SAYS LHO

PHOTOS NOT FAKED. Without this use of the school prestige, what newspapers would

have headlined FARID SAYS LHO PHOTOS NOT FAKED...? No media outlet would

have used the story unless backed by the school reputation!

Jack

And those professors who don't tow the 'party' line and dare to speak out against the societal mythology are all too often somehow removed, denied tenure, or muzzled - the list is too long to even begin it here. Jack's point is well taken. Speak out against the prevailing propaganda and your university will probably make you or the press state that 'this professor speaks on his or her own, and doesn't represent the views of the university and its board of whatever....'

Quite ironic that Fetzer a retired professor with controversial views calls for a university to interfere with the academic freedom or a professor whose conclusions he objects. Doubly ironic that in response Peter posts his agreement but complains about a lack of academic freedom.

So Peter can you name some of the profs who were "removed, denied tenure, or muzzled" because of their views? Saying "the list is too long to even begin it here" is a cop out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim...since the reply to you she said Dartmouth had no responsibility for the actions of its

professors...you should remind her that the imprimatur of the school was already on the

Farid study, since he was identified as a Dartmouth professor, backing him with the

college's reputation. Indeed, all headlines said DARTMOUTH PROFESSOR SAYS LHO

PHOTOS NOT FAKED. Without this use of the school prestige, what newspapers would

have headlined FARID SAYS LHO PHOTOS NOT FAKED...? No media outlet would

have used the story unless backed by the school reputation!

Jack

And those professors who don't tow the 'party' line and dare to speak out against the societal mythology are all too often somehow removed, denied tenure, or muzzled - the list is too long to even begin it here. Jack's point is well taken. Speak out against the prevailing propaganda and your university will probably make you or the press state that 'this professor speaks on his or her own, and doesn't represent the views of the university and its board of whatever....'

Quite ironic that Fetzer a retired professor with controversial views calls for a university to interfere with the academic freedom or a professor whose conclusions he objects. Doubly ironic that in response Peter posts his agreement but complains about a lack of academic freedom.

So Peter can you name some of the profs who were "removed, denied tenure, or muzzled" because of their views? Saying "the list is too long to even begin it here" is a cop out.

Yea, I'm sure others have used the same tactic against Prof. Fetzer, and maybe John Belaquavelva can get him investigated, arrested and fired?

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Bill, apart from kibitzing the work of others and writing reviews about books that are over your

head, what else have you ever contributed to understanding the assassination of JFK? Since you

like to insult me, in "Critical Thinking about Conspiracy Theories", I have challenged you to explain

exactly what I have wrong. I hereby expand the challenge to include "What Happened to JFK--and

Why it Matters Today". You appear to be no more than an ignorant, pompous ass. Prove me wrong!

Jim...since the reply to you she said Dartmouth had no responsibility for the actions of its

professors...you should remind her that the imprimatur of the school was already on the

Farid study, since he was identified as a Dartmouth professor, backing him with the

college's reputation. Indeed, all headlines said DARTMOUTH PROFESSOR SAYS LHO

PHOTOS NOT FAKED. Without this use of the school prestige, what newspapers would

have headlined FARID SAYS LHO PHOTOS NOT FAKED...? No media outlet would

have used the story unless backed by the school reputation!

Jack

And those professors who don't tow the 'party' line and dare to speak out against the societal mythology are all too often somehow removed, denied tenure, or muzzled - the list is too long to even begin it here. Jack's point is well taken. Speak out against the prevailing propaganda and your university will probably make you or the press state that 'this professor speaks on his or her own, and doesn't represent the views of the university and its board of whatever....'

Quite ironic that Fetzer a retired professor with controversial views calls for a university to interfere with the academic freedom or a professor whose conclusions he objects. Doubly ironic that in response Peter posts his agreement but complains about a lack of academic freedom.

So Peter can you name some of the profs who were "removed, denied tenure, or muzzled" because of their views? Saying "the list is too long to even begin it here" is a cop out.

Yea, I'm sure others have used the same tactic against Prof. Fetzer, and maybe John Belaquavelva can get him investigated, arrested and fired?

BK

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, in relation to 9/11 research, for example, Judy Wood was denied tenure, Kevin Barrett

was denied appointments, and Steve Jones was removed from the classroom, where there is

no reasonable alternative explanation than that they were punished for their research on 9/11.

Jim...since the reply to you she said Dartmouth had no responsibility for the actions of its

professors...you should remind her that the imprimatur of the school was already on the

Farid study, since he was identified as a Dartmouth professor, backing him with the

college's reputation. Indeed, all headlines said DARTMOUTH PROFESSOR SAYS LHO

PHOTOS NOT FAKED. Without this use of the school prestige, what newspapers would

have headlined FARID SAYS LHO PHOTOS NOT FAKED...? No media outlet would

have used the story unless backed by the school reputation!

Jack

And those professors who don't tow the 'party' line and dare to speak out against the societal mythology are all too often somehow removed, denied tenure, or muzzled - the list is too long to even begin it here. Jack's point is well taken. Speak out against the prevailing propaganda and your university will probably make you or the press state that 'this professor speaks on his or her own, and doesn't represent the views of the university and its board of whatever....'

Quite ironic that Fetzer a retired professor with controversial views calls for a university to interfere with the academic freedom or a professor whose conclusions he objects. Doubly ironic that in response Peter posts his agreement but complains about a lack of academic freedom.

So Peter can you name some of the profs who were "removed, denied tenure, or muzzled" because of their views? Saying "the list is too long to even begin it here" is a cop out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Jack, I liked your suggestion so much that I sent this as an addendum:

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:52:52 -0600 [11:52:52 AM CST]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: "Carol L. Folt" <Carol.L.Folt@dartmouth.edu>

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald

Dean Folt,

As an addendum, without out the imprimatur of Dartmouth, no one would have

taken this study seriously. Consider the cover story in The Huffington Post,

"Hany Farid, Dartmouth Scientist, Says Controversial Oswald Rifle Photo Real",

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/h...e_n_347862.html

Suppose the title has been, "Hany Farid Says Controversial Oswald Rifle Photo

Real"? No media outlet in the world would have used the story unless backed by

the school's reputation! Dartmouth's standing in the world is a function of its

reputation. If your faculty are willing to do the bidding of the FBI, which is what

appears to be the case here, then that will rapidly corrode it. Rather like that of a

hooker, Dartmouth's reputation is becoming tattered and torn.

In anguish,

Jim

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:

[Hide Quoted Text]

Carol L. Folt

Acting Provost and Dean of Faculty

Dartmouth College

Dean Folt,

How can you assert, "we have no reason to doubt the validity of

Professor Farid's research", when I have sent you proof that he

has committed enormous blunders and either did not even conduct

a literature search or presented false findings in spite of it?

I am most interested in who bears responsibility for the quality

of research at Dartmouth College. Since there could hardly be a

more blatant case of corruption, who enforces scholarly standards?

I have supposed that this duty fell to you. If not you, then who?

"The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasaco", a study I co-authored with Jim

Marrs, has now been republished by Global Research under the title,

"JFK Assassination. How 'Patsies are Framed': The Case of Lee Harvey

Oswald." I suggest you take the time to read it and think about it.

As a former commissioned officer in the Marine Corp with a thirty-

five-year career teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific

reasoning, I cannot imagine a greater abuse of position than this.

Do you suppose this illustrates "Dartmouth in the nation's service"?

In utter dismay,

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus

University of Minnesota Duluth

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Editor, Assassination Science (1998)

Editor, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000)

Editor, Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003)

800 Violet Lane

Oregon, WI 53575

Quoting "Carol L. Folt" <Carol.L.Folt@dartmouth.edu>:

Dear Professor Fetzer:

President Kim has referred to me your e-mail of December 10, 2009 concerning Professor

Hany Farid’s analysis of a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald.

As with most colleges and universities, Dartmouth College does not take institutional

responsibility for the scholarly activities of individual faculty members. While we

have no reason to doubt the validity of Professor Farid’s research, he alone is

responsible for it. If one scholar takes issue with another’s research methods or

conclusions, the traditional vehicle to express such concerns is through the open

scholarly literature.

Sincerely,

Carol L. Folt

Acting Provost and Dean of Faculty

Dartmouth College

Jim...since the reply to you she said Dartmouth had no responsibility for the actions of its

professors...you should remind her that the imprimatur of the school was already on the

Farid study, since he was identified as a Dartmouth professor, backing him with the

college's reputation. Indeed, all headlines said DARTMOUTH PROFESSOR SAYS LHO

PHOTOS NOT FAKED. Without this use of the school prestige, what newspapers would

have headlined FARID SAYS LHO PHOTOS NOT FAKED...? No media outlet would

have used the story unless backed by the school reputation!

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, in relation to 9/11 research, for example, Judy Wood was denied tenure,

Lots of profs get denied tenure in some schools/departments less than half make it. She wasnot popular with her students and according to a Clemson student on another forum her area of specialty (dental fillings) didn't fit well with the rest of the dept. No evidence has been presented she was denied tenure because of her views over 9/11

rate your professors

Kevin Barrett was denied appointments,

During the controversy over his views UW stood by him, he left then cried foul when he couldn't get his old class back. He claims a less qualified candidate was hired for another position he applied for at another campus but provided no evidence to support his claim. Afterbeing arrested for being his own son he is unlikely to get a teaching appointment anywhere.Since he has calledfor the execution of Amy Goodman and various other journalists he hardly qualifies as a free speech martyr

and Steve Jones was removed from the classroom,

This is the only case I know of, he was allowed to keep his office and got severence and a full pension

no reasonable alternative explanation than that they were punished for their research on 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Len, once again, you don't know what you are talking about. Judy had more than 60 peer-reviewed publications when she was

denied. During his career, Steve has had less than half that number, yet he was full professor and she assistant. I know how

you love to use words to make stuff up, but these were bona-fide cases. The Barrett case was especially striking, because he

was targeted for removal from his appointment at the University of Wisconsin specifically for discussing 9/11 in the classroom.

He was attacked by the Governor and prominent members of the state legislature, in case you missed it! It was huge news.

This is why I find you so disgusting: You act as though you were an expert, even when all the evidence is against you! Like

the Energizer Bunny, you come back, again and again, spouting your crap! The Jones case was also spectacular and received

a lot of coverage in the newspapers. It, too, was centered on his research on 9/11. Perhaps, by now, everyone knows that

you are a fraud. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry, but your abuse of logic and of evidence is repulsive.

Well, in relation to 9/11 research, for example, Judy Wood was denied tenure,

Lots of profs get denied tenure in some schools/departments less than half make it. She wasnot popular with her students and according to a Clemson student on another forum her area of specialty (dental fillings) didn't fit well with the rest of the dept. No evidence has been presented she was denied tenure because of her views over 9/11

rate your professors

Kevin Barrett was denied appointments,

During the controversy over his views UW stood by him, he left then cried foul when he couldn't get his old class back. He claims a less qualified candidate was hired for another position he applied for at another campus but provided no evidence to support his claim. Afterbeing arrested for being his own son he is unlikely to get a teaching appointment anywhere.Since he has calledfor the execution of Amy Goodman and various other journalists he hardly qualifies as a free speech martyr

and Steve Jones was removed from the classroom,

This is the only case I know of, he was allowed to keep his office and got severence and a full pension

no reasonable alternative explanation than that they were punished for their research on 9/11.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...