Oswald Picture Not Faked

[Craig Lamson]

BILL KELLY NOTES - THIS GUY IS HEAVY INTO MONEY FROM NATIONAL SECURITY - HOMELAND SECURITY - FOUNDATIONS - ETC., (SEE: NEUKOM) AND IS IN THE FOREFRONT OF A NEW FIELD - DIGITAL FORENSICS - YET - IT ISN'T THE NATIONAL SECURITY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BUGGING HIM - ASKING HIM DAILY TO LOOK INTO PHOTOS CONNECTED TO THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT - IT'S CONSPIRACY THEORISTS -

Gee Bill can't you do any better than stooping to ad homs? Pretty obviously one of the principle consumers of forensic photography (or forensic anything) is going to be law enforcement And his computer science professorship was endowed by [cue in spooky music]a grant from Microsofts' the chief council [/spooky music]

Perhaps you should wait for the paper to come out before bashing on it.

Tom I have no idea what points you were trying to makein your over long post.What exactly is the connection between Delay and this story,why are Neukom's ties to the SF Giants relevat? Why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant? Please try to avoid another War and Peace length reply

Hey Len,

EXACTLY - "FORENSIC" Anything "forensic" must, by definition, be able to be used in a court of law, but I don't see this even getting past the peer review that I don't think it has undergone.

You have the entire paper - the 3 page report he published on the Dartmouth college web site as an abstract. If there's more, I can't wait to see it.

There's no hesitation in bashing it because it doesn't demonstrate what the headlines said it shows - the backyard photos are authentic, when in fact it only shows the shadows are authentic in one of the pictures, and that's now questionable since Farid never made any attempt to utilize the entire arsenal of new techniques available and never bothered to inventory the know samples available and try to determine where they came from.

And I wish someone would post the known published photo of the backyard pix in which they took the scope off the rifle and totally out of the picture - and explain why they did that.

As for Tom Scully's posts, I too think it important where the money comes from and who is paying for this "research" that includes the latest computer technology and creation of a 3D model skull, but fails to answer the outstanding questions about the backyard photos and create new evidence that can be introduced into a court of law - whichever way it goes.

And if there's that much money to play with, why not study all the known photos in detail, forensically, so they can be introduced into a court of law, whatever they say?

And why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant?

Because in 1967, that's more than 30 years ago - when Lawrence Schiller, the hired hack who worked for CBS got this guy we haven't identified yet to pose in the same posture as Oswald in the same place in the same backyard on the same exact day - three or four years later - just to see if the shadows on the nose would be the same - the very issue that Mr. Farid said he was conclusively demonstrating as authentic - then what became of the CBS results of Schiller's experiment?

Is this the same CBS report that also had former Warren Commissioner J.J. McCloy request a review of the autopsy photo and x-rays by the three doctors invovled, and get their signed affidavits to ensure they were authentic?

We only know about this CBS/JJMcCloy review because Dr. Finck was recalled to USA from Vietnam just to verify the autopsy photos and x-rays.

And now we have another CBS employee Larry Schiller, at the very same time - trying to replicate the backyard photos in order to prove their authenticity.

Was there a conserted effort on behalf of CBS at that time - to authenticate questionable photos? And what was their purpose?

I never had any doubt about any of the photos, but now I do.

BK

More paranoia run amuck...Farid used Maya by Autodesk to create his 3d model. Nothing really special here, anyone with 4000 bucks can purchase a copy and learn to use it. Par for the course Bill Kelly grossly exaggerates the process and money spent.

Bill has a problem. Bubbles are being burst. He can't refute the study so he attacks the messenger and some really specious grounds. 30 years ago someone did a recreation that matches the work of Farid. And Farid's work matches one of the backyard images. Holy xxxxe batman, the JFK ct's have a problem. The very basis of the backyard photos being false has always been the shadows. In fact it’s the only real theory that rests on photographic principle. All the rest are simply "bunnies in the clouds", or based on the mistaken belief you can resize photos taken from different camera to subject distance and compare the resulting sizes of object within the photograph.

Farid was quite clear about what he was testing. He was testing the shadows on the face and ground for one of the backyard images...an image JFK ct's for years have claimed contained impossible shadows. Farid's works shows that is incorrect.

Bill's paranoia went into overdrive. Why his guy Farid does work for law enforcement and the government! He can't be trusted, or at least he is questionable. And my god, he did not do the massive pile of work Bill thinks should have been performed. Never mind Farid did what he set out to do, Bills still not happy. BY god he SHOULD have done all the tests Bill Kelly requires...or else!

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work. He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them. Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself. And while you are at it destroy the other silly shadow myth, that the shadow on the ground cannot change angles. Do a simple experiment. Place a broom handle in a small hole in the ground so you can tilt it side to side and front to back. Lean the pole back and to the left. Observe the shadow and its angle in comparison to the pole. Now lean the pole forward and repeat the observation. Did the shadow angle on the ground change? Of course it did. Pat yourself on the back, you just debunked yet another silly JFK ct claim.

[William Kelly]

BILL KELLY NOTES - THIS GUY IS HEAVY INTO MONEY FROM NATIONAL SECURITY - HOMELAND SECURITY - FOUNDATIONS - ETC., (SEE: NEUKOM) AND IS IN THE FOREFRONT OF A NEW FIELD - DIGITAL FORENSICS - YET - IT ISN'T THE NATIONAL SECURITY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BUGGING HIM - ASKING HIM DAILY TO LOOK INTO PHOTOS CONNECTED TO THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT - IT'S CONSPIRACY THEORISTS -

Gee Bill can't you do any better than stooping to ad homs? Pretty obviously one of the principle consumers of forensic photography (or forensic anything) is going to be law enforcement And his computer science professorship was endowed by [cue in spooky music]a grant from Microsofts' the chief council [/spooky music]

Perhaps you should wait for the paper to come out before bashing on it.

Tom I have no idea what points you were trying to makein your over long post.What exactly is the connection between Delay and this story,why are Neukom's ties to the SF Giants relevat? Why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant? Please try to avoid another War and Peace length reply

Hey Len,

EXACTLY - "FORENSIC" Anything "forensic" must, by definition, be able to be used in a court of law, but I don't see this even getting past the peer review that I don't think it has undergone.

You have the entire paper - the 3 page report he published on the Dartmouth college web site as an abstract. If there's more, I can't wait to see it.

There's no hesitation in bashing it because it doesn't demonstrate what the headlines said it shows - the backyard photos are authentic, when in fact it only shows the shadows are authentic in one of the pictures, and that's now questionable since Farid never made any attempt to utilize the entire arsenal of new techniques available and never bothered to inventory the know samples available and try to determine where they came from.

And I wish someone would post the known published photo of the backyard pix in which they took the scope off the rifle and totally out of the picture - and explain why they did that.

As for Tom Scully's posts, I too think it important where the money comes from and who is paying for this "research" that includes the latest computer technology and creation of a 3D model skull, but fails to answer the outstanding questions about the backyard photos and create new evidence that can be introduced into a court of law - whichever way it goes.

And if there's that much money to play with, why not study all the known photos in detail, forensically, so they can be introduced into a court of law, whatever they say?

And why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant?

Because in 1967, that's more than 30 years ago - when Lawrence Schiller, the hired hack who worked for CBS got this guy we haven't identified yet to pose in the same posture as Oswald in the same place in the same backyard on the same exact day - three or four years later - just to see if the shadows on the nose would be the same - the very issue that Mr. Farid said he was conclusively demonstrating as authentic - then what became of the CBS results of Schiller's experiment?

Is this the same CBS report that also had former Warren Commissioner J.J. McCloy request a review of the autopsy photo and x-rays by the three doctors invovled, and get their signed affidavits to ensure they were authentic?

We only know about this CBS/JJMcCloy review because Dr. Finck was recalled to USA from Vietnam just to verify the autopsy photos and x-rays.

And now we have another CBS employee Larry Schiller, at the very same time - trying to replicate the backyard photos in order to prove their authenticity.

Was there a conserted effort on behalf of CBS at that time - to authenticate questionable photos? And what was their purpose?

I never had any doubt about any of the photos, but now I do.

BK

More paranoia run amuck...Farid used Maya by Autodesk to create his 3d model. Nothing really special here, anyone with 4000 bucks can purchase a copy and learn to use it. Par for the course Bill Kelly grossly exaggerates the process and money spent.

BK: I THINK ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON THE STUDY OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE IS MONEY WELL SPENT. NO EXAGGERATION.

Bill has a problem. Bubbles are being burst. He can't refute the study so he attacks the messenger and some really specious grounds.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIM DETERMINING THE PHOTOS ARE GENUINE, BUT HE DIDN'T STUDY THAT. HIS PRESS RELEASE MISREPRESENTS WHAT HE DID, AS DO THE HEADLINES AND ARTICLES WRITTEN ABOUT HIS REPORT.

30 years ago someone did a recreation that matches the work of Farid.

NOT JUST SOMEONE - LARRY SCHILLER DID IT - AND HE DID IT FOR CBS, JUST LIKE FARID IS DOING IT FOR GATE'S LAWYER

And Farid's work matches one of the backyard images. Holy xxxxe batman, the JFK ct's have a problem.

WHOSE THE CT'S? AND WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

The very basis of the backyard photos being false has always been the shadows.

WAIT A MINUTE - I THOUGHT THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES - LIKE OSWALD'S HEAD ON SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY - JUST LIKE THE OPHRA AND ANN MARGRET PHOTO?

In fact it’s the only real theory that rests on photographic principle.

WHAT PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE IS THAT AGAIN?

All the rest are simply "bunnies in the clouds", or based on the mistaken belief you can resize photos taken from different camera to subject distance and compare the resulting sizes of object within the photograph.

I'M NOT RESIZING ANYTHING. I'M READING A STUDY BY A GUY WHO REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS A DIGITAL FORENSIC SCIENTISTS WHO SAYS HE AUTHENTICATED THE BACKYARD PHOTOS, BUT WHEN I READ HIS PAPER HE DOESN'T DO THAT AT ALL.

Farid was quite clear about what he was testing. He was testing the shadows on the face and ground for one of the backyard images...an image JFK ct's for years have claimed contained impossible shadows. Farid's works shows that is incorrect.

FARID'S WORK SHOWS THE SHADOWS ARE CORRECT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE PHOTOS AUTHENTIC - ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT THEY REMOVED THE SCOPE FROM

Bill's paranoia went into overdrive. Why his guy Farid does work for law enforcement and the government! He can't be trusted, or at least he is questionable.

I WORK WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT ALL THE TIME. MY FATHER WAS A COP. THE COPS I KNOW DON'T TRY TO DISPROVE CLAIMS BY CTS, THEY DON'T EVEN LISTEN TO CTS. I LIKE WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORS WHO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF CRIME - THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE INTRODUCED INTO A COURT OF LAW. I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT FARID WAS DOING, BUT HE DOESN'T.

And my god, he did not do the massive pile of work Bill thinks should have been performed. Never mind Farid did what he set out to do, Bills still not happy. BY god he SHOULD have done all the tests Bill Kelly requires...or else!

HEY, ALL I REQUIRE IS TO LOCATE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES THAT CAN BE INTRODUCED INTO CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON JFK ACT OR A SPECIAL FEDERAL GRAND JURY. NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING ELSE. SOMEBODY STILL HAS TO TO THE WORK. IT CAN BE DONE.

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work. He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them.

I AGREE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PHOTOS ARE GENUINE, AND IF THEY ARE, WHAT THEY MEAN. THEY ARE POSED - THERE'S A MAN - OSWALD - A PISTOL - SAID TO BE USED TO KILL A COP, AND A RIFLE SAID TO BE USED TO KILL A PRESIDENT, AND TWO MAGAZINES, ONE THE WORKER AND ONE THE MILLITANT - WITH ARTICLES ABOUT CASTRO AND CUBA ON THE COVER. THE SHADOWS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME.

Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself. And while you are at it destroy the other silly shadow myth, that the shadow on the ground cannot change angles. Do a simple experiment. Place a broom handle in a small hole in the ground so you can tilt it side to side and front to back. Lean the pole back and to the left. Observe the shadow and its angle in comparison to the pole. Now lean the pole forward and repeat the observation. Did the shadow angle on the ground change? Of course it did. Pat yourself on the back, you just debunked yet another silly JFK ct claim.

ANYBODY WHO HAS TO LOOK AT THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF A LONE NUT OR A CONSPIRACY THEORISTS IS TOO SIMPLE MINDED TO SEE THE TRUTH ANYWAY.

[Martin Hinrichs]

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work.

What?¿

He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

I have a company, which has highest priority.

To complete the work i have to fly over the ocean to do a per to per test in Neely. Both real life recreation and measurements of the house.

This work will confirm my work, which is far more based on facts than Farid's.

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

So, you have seen this photograph. Now you know what the problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is?????

Shall i attach this photo here to make sure you are the man with problems to understand the issue?

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them. Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself.

What ?¿

Thats exactly what i asked for several times! You did nothing!

Please show us here your result.

Thank you

[Craig Lamson]

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work.

What?¿

Its not buried? So were is it, you claimed MONTHS ago you were "fixing it". Still buried.

He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

I have a company, which has highest priority.

To complete the work i have to fly over the ocean to do a per to per test in Neely. Both real life recreation and measurements of the house.

This work will confirm my work, which is far more based on facts than Farid's.

Oh yea, to "complete the work". Months ago your work was complete. In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.) Problems were correctly pointed out wiht your "perfect" work. Since then its been in hiding. Farid, did what any good scientist would do, he did a proof of concept experiment. Martin is chashing a fools errand, a recreation. Why? Because a perfect recreation photo is impossible. Smart people never try.

In any case exactly how will measurement of the house help with the major problem you have, and thats Oswalds body position? The fact is it won't help one bit. Its a ruse, a smokescreen. Martin can't measure the forward or backward lean of Oswald, all he can do is move him around on a whim, and of course this is his objection to Farid's proof of concept work.

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

So, you have seen this photograph. Now you know what the problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is?????

Shall i attach this photo here to make sure you are the man with problems to understand the issue?

Of course I've seen the one of the photos, and it was a very decent match for the backyard photos for the nose shadow and ground shadow. In fact the photographer told me that after he took the photos he was changing his mind about the backyard photos being fake. So sure, post away Martin. Just make sure it is NOT the photos from the Neely backyard draped in tree shadows. The photographer also did a series in a field closeby.

Of course Martin will nitpick the resulting photos as not being a perfect fit for the backyard, and they are not. Tye are however solid proof of concept.

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them. Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself.

What ?¿

Thats exactly what i asked for several times! You did nothing!

Please show us here your result.

As I've stated more than once I don't post recreation photos, for the very reason you are a fool to think you can do a "recreation". Its impossible to exactly recreat a phtograph. I've been advertising photograpoher for 30 years and I've been asked to recreate photos I have done in the controlled confines of the studio many times. Even with the details of how the original photo was made known to me, and the ability to overlay the new image over the old in the computer while shooting, you can't get an exact match.

I went out and observed the interplay of light and shadow at the correct times. The purpose of the observations were to study the concept and the interconnect of body position and the casting of shadow. That's exactly what I suggest anyone with the interest do for themself.

Now if you want proof of concept images showing how changes in head positon changes the nose shadow, or how body lean, camera height and camera to subject distance change the shadow angle on the ground in relation to an object, I'll be happy to create those photos for you. And again, anyone with an interest can simply try themself and observe with their own eyes.

Your attempts to do a recreation image wil fail also for the same reason. You wil never be able to exactly recreate the perfect head nor body positon for Oswald.

Thank you

Edited November 18, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

BILL KELLY NOTES - THIS GUY IS HEAVY INTO MONEY FROM NATIONAL SECURITY - HOMELAND SECURITY - FOUNDATIONS - ETC., (SEE: NEUKOM) AND IS IN THE FOREFRONT OF A NEW FIELD - DIGITAL FORENSICS - YET - IT ISN'T THE NATIONAL SECURITY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BUGGING HIM - ASKING HIM DAILY TO LOOK INTO PHOTOS CONNECTED TO THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT - IT'S CONSPIRACY THEORISTS -

Gee Bill can't you do any better than stooping to ad homs? Pretty obviously one of the principle consumers of forensic photography (or forensic anything) is going to be law enforcement And his computer science professorship was endowed by [cue in spooky music]a grant from Microsofts' the chief council [/spooky music]

Perhaps you should wait for the paper to come out before bashing on it.

Tom I have no idea what points you were trying to makein your over long post.What exactly is the connection between Delay and this story,why are Neukom's ties to the SF Giants relevat? Why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant? Please try to avoid another War and Peace length reply

Hey Len,

EXACTLY - "FORENSIC" Anything "forensic" must, by definition, be able to be used in a court of law, but I don't see this even getting past the peer review that I don't think it has undergone.

You have the entire paper - the 3 page report he published on the Dartmouth college web site as an abstract. If there's more, I can't wait to see it.

There's no hesitation in bashing it because it doesn't demonstrate what the headlines said it shows - the backyard photos are authentic, when in fact it only shows the shadows are authentic in one of the pictures, and that's now questionable since Farid never made any attempt to utilize the entire arsenal of new techniques available and never bothered to inventory the know samples available and try to determine where they came from.

And I wish someone would post the known published photo of the backyard pix in which they took the scope off the rifle and totally out of the picture - and explain why they did that.

As for Tom Scully's posts, I too think it important where the money comes from and who is paying for this "research" that includes the latest computer technology and creation of a 3D model skull, but fails to answer the outstanding questions about the backyard photos and create new evidence that can be introduced into a court of law - whichever way it goes.

And if there's that much money to play with, why not study all the known photos in detail, forensically, so they can be introduced into a court of law, whatever they say?

And why is the firm he worked for 30 years ago relevant?

Because in 1967, that's more than 30 years ago - when Lawrence Schiller, the hired hack who worked for CBS got this guy we haven't identified yet to pose in the same posture as Oswald in the same place in the same backyard on the same exact day - three or four years later - just to see if the shadows on the nose would be the same - the very issue that Mr. Farid said he was conclusively demonstrating as authentic - then what became of the CBS results of Schiller's experiment?

Is this the same CBS report that also had former Warren Commissioner J.J. McCloy request a review of the autopsy photo and x-rays by the three doctors invovled, and get their signed affidavits to ensure they were authentic?

We only know about this CBS/JJMcCloy review because Dr. Finck was recalled to USA from Vietnam just to verify the autopsy photos and x-rays.

And now we have another CBS employee Larry Schiller, at the very same time - trying to replicate the backyard photos in order to prove their authenticity.

Was there a conserted effort on behalf of CBS at that time - to authenticate questionable photos? And what was their purpose?

I never had any doubt about any of the photos, but now I do.

BK

More paranoia run amuck...Farid used Maya by Autodesk to create his 3d model. Nothing really special here, anyone with 4000 bucks can purchase a copy and learn to use it. Par for the course Bill Kelly grossly exaggerates the process and money spent.

BK: I THINK ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON THE STUDY OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE IS MONEY WELL SPENT. NO EXAGGERATION.

So you now are happy with Farid has done and the money he has spent?

Bill has a problem. Bubbles are being burst. He can't refute the study so he attacks the messenger and some really specious grounds.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIM DETERMINING THE PHOTOS ARE GENUINE, BUT HE DIDN'T STUDY THAT. HIS PRESS RELEASE MISREPRESENTS WHAT HE DID, AS DO THE HEADLINES AND ARTICLES WRITTEN ABOUT HIS REPORT.

Farid was perfectly clear about what he did and what it showed. Who gives a rat behind what a pres release (advertising) or a new story (written by moron journalists) say. All that matters is what is in his actual paper.

30 years ago someone did a recreation that matches the work of Farid.

NOT JUST SOMEONE - LARRY SCHILLER DID IT - AND HE DID IT FOR CBS, JUST LIKE FARID IS DOING IT FOR GATE'S LAWYER

Again who cares WHO did the work. Is it correct or not? Can you impeach it or not? Thats the bottom line Bill. So far all you can offer is a a rant, and no substance on the actual work. You ever gonna try? BTW, how do you know, "Gates's Laywer"had anything to do with this one study?

And Farid's work matches one of the backyard images. Holy xxxxe batman, the JFK ct's have a problem.

WHOSE THE CT'S? AND WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

You are kidding ..right? Have you read this thread?

The very basis of the backyard photos being false has always been the shadows.

WAIT A MINUTE - I THOUGHT THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES - LIKE OSWALD'S HEAD ON SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY - JUST LIKE THE OPHRA AND ANN MARGRET PHOTO?

Some claim the head has been switched, which is "bunny in the clouds". As proof it is claimed that the nose shadow does not match the ground shadow, which is the basis of Farid's work. You really need to learn to follow along Bill.

In fact it’s the only real theory that rests on photographic principle.

WHAT PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE IS THAT AGAIN?

The properties of light and shadow, the basis of photographic imagemaking.

All the rest are simply "bunnies in the clouds", or based on the mistaken belief you can resize photos taken from different camera to subject distance and compare the resulting sizes of object within the photograph.

I'M NOT RESIZING ANYTHING. I'M READING A STUDY BY A GUY WHO REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS A DIGITAL FORENSIC SCIENTISTS WHO SAYS HE AUTHENTICATED THE BACKYARD PHOTOS, BUT WHEN I READ HIS PAPER HE DOESN'T DO THAT AT ALL.

Read again, he is VERY CLEAR about what his study does and does not do.

Farid was quite clear about what he was testing. He was testing the shadows on the face and ground for one of the backyard images...an image JFK ct's for years have claimed contained impossible shadows. Farid's works shows that is incorrect.

FARID'S WORK SHOWS THE SHADOWS ARE CORRECT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE PHOTOS AUTHENTIC - ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT THEY REMOVED THE SCOPE FROM

So, lets see. You have the photo with the scope and a photo that a publication has admitted altering. Somehow the altered publication photo (a pretty common practice in the publication world) somehow effects the other image? What bizarro world do you live in Bill?

Bill's paranoia went into overdrive. Why his guy Farid does work for law enforcement and the government! He can't be trusted, or at least he is questionable.

I WORK WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT ALL THE TIME. MY FATHER WAS A COP. THE COPS I KNOW DON'T TRY TO DISPROVE CLAIMS BY CTS, THEY DON'T EVEN LISTEN TO CTS. I LIKE WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORS WHO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR FORENSIC EVIDENCE OF CRIME - THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE INTRODUCED INTO A COURT OF LAW. I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT FARID WAS DOING, BUT HE DOESN'T.

So Farid's work could NOT be introduced into a court of law? Why not? Farid tested a sinlge problem and produced proof of concept for that problem.

And my god, he did not do the massive pile of work Bill thinks should have been performed. Never mind Farid did what he set out to do, Bills still not happy. BY god he SHOULD have done all the tests Bill Kelly requires...or else!

HEY, ALL I REQUIRE IS TO LOCATE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES THAT CAN BE INTRODUCED INTO CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON JFK ACT OR A SPECIAL FEDERAL GRAND JURY. NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING ELSE. SOMEBODY STILL HAS TO TO THE WORK. IT CAN BE DONE.

Farid just gave you solid evidence and you reject it.

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work. He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them.

I AGREE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PHOTOS ARE GENUINE, AND IF THEY ARE, WHAT THEY MEAN. THEY ARE POSED - THERE'S A MAN - OSWALD - A PISTOL - SAID TO BE USED TO KILL A COP, AND A RIFLE SAID TO BE USED TO KILL A PRESIDENT, AND TWO MAGAZINES, ONE THE WORKER AND ONE THE MILLITANT - WITH ARTICLES ABOUT CASTRO AND CUBA ON THE COVER. THE SHADOWS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME.

And yet here you are arguing about the work Farid did on the shadows. Make up your mind Bill.

Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself. And while you are at it destroy the other silly shadow myth, that the shadow on the ground cannot change angles. Do a simple experiment. Place a broom handle in a small hole in the ground so you can tilt it side to side and front to back. Lean the pole back and to the left. Observe the shadow and its angle in comparison to the pole. Now lean the pole forward and repeat the observation. Did the shadow angle on the ground change? Of course it did. Pat yourself on the back, you just debunked yet another silly JFK ct claim.

ANYBODY WHO HAS TO LOOK AT THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF A LONE NUT OR A CONSPIRACY THEORISTS IS TOO SIMPLE MINDED TO SEE THE TRUTH ANYWAY.

LOL!...so where does that place YOU Bill?

[David G. Healy]

...

ANYBODY WHO HAS TO LOOK AT THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF A LONE NUT OR A CONSPIRACY THEORISTS IS TOO SIMPLE MINDED TO SEE THE TRUTH ANYWAY.

LOL!...so where does that place YOU Bill?

when ya finally put those funny cigarettes down, things clear up there Craigster.... btw, you and Colby sharing the same bowl these day's? Where one is you'll find the other, how quaint.

Anyway, ya gotta have 25,000 posts to forums you've been thrown off of and those you're still hanging on at defending the JFK assassination--LHO/DP related photographic/film record, Craig. Ya think with all the news media, documentaries, cable shows, Dallas hype, nutter-xxxxx adoration of all things 6th floor museum you guys would put the brakes on film-photo alteration incessant buzz.... can't find any pro photog's that buy into lone nut xxxxx non-alteration nonsense? Gotta be those stipends then, eh?

Where's Wild Bill Millah when the lone nuts need him, eh?

Edited November 18, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

...

ANYBODY WHO HAS TO LOOK AT THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF A LONE NUT OR A CONSPIRACY THEORISTS IS TOO SIMPLE MINDED TO SEE THE TRUTH ANYWAY.

LOL!...so where does that place YOU Bill?

when ya finally put those funny cigarettes down, things clear up there Craigster.... btw, you and Colby sharing the same bowl these day's? Where one is you'll find the other, how quaint.

Anyway, ya gotta have 25,000 posts to forums you've been thrown off of and those you're still hanging on at defending the JFK assassination--LHO/DP related photographic/film record, Craig. Ya think with all the news media, documentaries, cable shows, Dallas hype, nutter-xxxxx adoration of all things 6th floor museum you guys would put the brakes on film-photo alteration incessant buzz.... can't find any pro photog's that buy into lone nut xxxxx non-alteration nonsense? Gotta be those stipends then, eh?

Where's Wild Bill Millah when the lone nuts need him, eh?

Is there a "incessant photo-film alteration buzz" outside of the kooks you you hang with davie? Wow, I guess not!

BTW, you might want to be careful with your drug usage statemenns here on the forum. I would sure hate to see you put on moderation or worse for claiming I'm (or Len) doing drugs. You never know when someone just might hit the report button.

[Len Colby]

Bill

I’m not sure what you are making such a fuss about since you think the photos are authentic.

You claim large amounts of money were spent but none of the articles I’ve seen say this. My impression was similar to Craig’s i.e. it came through Neukom’s normal budget, the only possible costs being buying the software (which they might have had already) and Farid’s time.

You say it’s important to know who paid for it but as per above that doesn’t seem to be an issue. Who Neukom worked for is irrelevant, I’ve seen no evidence he was ever directly involved in running the institute which bears his name. He donated $22 million in 2004 and was a University trustee 1996 – 2007 and chairman 2004 – 7, Farid was hired in 2008.

You doubt it would pass peer review but admit a lack of expertise and it is slated for publication in a reasonably prominent peer reviewed journal.

You claim “his press release misrepresents what he did,” OK then, quote which part it makes a false claim.

Len

[Len Colby]

You obviously didn’t watch the entire video; he showed the body model after 2:33

Since presumably you haven't read the paper (it has NOT been published yet) and you didn’t even watch the entire video your criticism is premature.

Len, i hope this will answer your questions.

No i haven't read a paper which is NOT yet published. How can i?

best Martin

No you haven't read the paper yet,you didn't even bother to watch the video. Thus your criticism is premature.

You can read a summary here:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publicat...erception09.pdf

[Len Colby]

when ya finally put those funny cigarettes down, things clear up there Craigster.... btw, you and Colby sharing the same bowl these day's? Where one is you'll find the other, how quaint.

On yeah! Craig and I always see eye to eye on everything!

Quite ironic that someone whose posts are normally incomprehensible would insinuate others post "under the influence".

[Craig Lamson]

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work.

What?¿

Its not buried? So were is it, you claimed MONTHS ago you were "fixing it". Still buried.

He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

I have a company, which has highest priority.

To complete the work i have to fly over the ocean to do a per to per test in Neely. Both real life recreation and measurements of the house.

This work will confirm my work, which is far more based on facts than Farid's.

Oh yea, to "complete the work". Months ago your work was complete. In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.) Problems were correctly pointed out wiht your "perfect" work. Since then its been in hiding. Farid, did what any good scientist would do, he did a proof of concept experiment. Martin is chashing a fools errand, a recreation. Why? Because a perfect recreation photo is impossible. Smart people never try.

In any case exactly how will measurement of the house help with the major problem you have, and thats Oswalds body position? The fact is it won't help one bit. Its a ruse, a smokescreen. Martin can't measure the forward or backward lean of Oswald, all he can do is move him around on a whim, and of course this is his objection to Farid's proof of concept work.

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

So, you have seen this photograph. Now you know what the problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is?????

Shall i attach this photo here to make sure you are the man with problems to understand the issue?

Of course I've seen the one of the photos, and it was a very decent match for the backyard photos for the nose shadow and ground shadow. In fact the photographer told me that after he took the photos he was changing his mind about the backyard photos being fake. So sure, post away Martin. Just make sure it is NOT the photos from the Neely backyard draped in tree shadows. The photographer also did a series in a field closeby.

Of course Martin will nitpick the resulting photos as not being a perfect fit for the backyard, and they are not. Tye are however solid proof of concept.

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them. Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself.

What ?¿

Thats exactly what i asked for several times! You did nothing!

Please show us here your result.

As I've stated more than once I don't post recreation photos, for the very reason you are a fool to think you can do a "recreation". Its impossible to exactly recreat a phtograph. I've been advertising photograpoher for 30 years and I've been asked to recreate photos I have done in the controlled confines of the studio many times. Even with the details of how the original photo was made known to me, and the ability to overlay the new image over the old in the computer while shooting, you can't get an exact match.

I went out and observed the interplay of light and shadow at the correct times. The purpose of the observations were to study the concept and the interconnect of body position and the casting of shadow. That's exactly what I suggest anyone with the interest do for themself.

Now if you want proof of concept images showing how changes in head positon changes the nose shadow, or how body lean, camera height and camera to subject distance change the shadow angle on the ground in relation to an object, I'll be happy to create those photos for you. And again, anyone with an interest can simply try themself and observe with their own eyes.

Your attempts to do a recreation image wil fail also for the same reason. You wil never be able to exactly recreate the perfect head nor body positon for Oswald.

Thank you

I have a correction to make and I did not want it to be an edit.

In the above post I made this statement:

"In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.)"

I was wrong, Martin had not removed his statement on edit, it was posted deeper in the thread in question and I did not spot it until now. My apologies

[William Kelly]

THE PRESS RELEASE:

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

Dartmouth Professor finds that iconic Oswald photo was not faked

Dartmouth College Office of Public Affairs • Press Release

Posted 11/05/09 • Media Contact: Susan Knapp (603) 646-3661

Dartmouth Computer ScientistHany 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.

THE COMPLETE PAPER: to be published in Perception Magazine

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publicat...erception09.pdf

The Lee Harvey Oswald Backyard Photos: Real or Fake?

Hany Farid

Department of Computer Science

Dartmouth College

Hanover NH 03755

603.646.2761 (t)

603.646.1672 (f)

farid@cs.dartmouth.edu

Ever since the assassination of U.S. President Kennedy, numerous theories have circulated

purporting that Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin, acted as part of a larger criminal

conspiracy. It has been suggested, for example, that incriminating photographs of Oswald were manipulated, and hence evidence of a broader plot. Specifically, it has been argued that the lighting and shadows in these photos are physically impossible. Because the visual system is often unable to reliably judge 3-D geometry and lighting, we performed a detailed 3-D analysis of the Oswald photos to determine if claims of tampering are warranted.

Perception (in press) 1

United States President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22nd, 1963. Shortly

afterwards, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and charged with the crime. Because he was killed before his trial, however, many questions surrounding the assassination remained unanswered.

Since this time, numerous theories have circulated suggesting that Oswald acted as part of a

larger criminal conspiracy involving a variety of government, international, or criminal groups.

These conspiracy theories are not just the province of a small minority; a 2003 ABC News poll1 found that 70% of Americans believe that Kennedys death was the result of a broader plot.

Many of these theories point to purported inconsistencies in the events of November 22nd, and in the evidence collected against Oswald. One such example includes the photographs of Oswald in his backyard holstering a pistol, and holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other (Figure 1). Oswald claimed that these photos were fake.

In addition, many have argued that the shadow cast by his body onto the ground, and the shadow under his nose are inconsistent with a single light source, and hence evidence of a photographic fake. At first glance, these shadows may seem to be the result of two different lights: one directly above Oswald giving rise to the shadow under his nose, and the other in front of and to the left of Oswald, giving rise to the shadow on the ground.

It has previously been pointed out, however, that the human visual system can be quite inept at judging inconsistencies in lighting and shadows (Ostrovsky, Cavanagh & Sinha 2005, Farid & Bravo 2010). Rather than rely on subjective analysis, we constructed a 3-D model

of Oswalds head and 3-D models of Perception (in press) 2

1 ABC News Poll: Who Killed JFK? 11/9/03

Figure 1. Lee Harvey Oswald in his backyard (top) and a magnified view of his head (bottom). Are the shadows in this photo inconsistent with a single light source? portions of the backyard to determine if the shadows in this photo could be explained by a single light source. We constructed a 3-D model of Oswalds head from his police mug shots (Figure 2) using FaceGen (Singular Inversions). This 3-D model was then combined with a generic articulated 3-D body2, and rendered in the 3-D modeling software Maya (Autodesk). The ground plane, post under the stairs, and fence were created from simple 3-D primitives. The scene geometry, camera position, and direction of a distant light source (i.e., sun) were manually positioned until they matched the original photo shown in Figure 1.

Shown in Figures 3 and 4 are the rendered 3-D models and the original photo. Note that in

Figure 3, the shadows under the nose, eyes, lower lip, and neck are well matched between the model and the original.

At the same time, the shadow cast by the body onto the ground plane is also well matched with the original (Figure4). Note also that the thin sliver of a shadow from the vertical post is also well matched. These shadows, which at first glance appeared inconsistent, are in fact perfectly consistent with a single light source. Perception (in press)

Alfred 1.2.0: www.creativecrash.com/maya/downloads/character-rigs/c/alfred

Figure 2. A profile and frontal view of Oswald (top) are used to construct a 3-D model (bottom).

Figure 3. Oswalds head and the 3-D model the shadows under the nose, eyes, lower lip and neck are well matched.

Evidence of tampering in this historical and controversial photo would have suggested a

broader conspiracy behind Kennedys assassination. A 3-D lighting and shadow analysis of this photo, however, reveals no such evidence of tampering. Claims to the contrary are a result of the inability of the visual system to reliably judge 3-D geometry and lighting from a photograph.

Acknowledgments. My thanks to Tim Tregubov for his help with Maya, and to Mary Bravo for helpful comments.

References

Blanz V and Vetter T, 1999 A Morphable Model for the Synthesis of 3D Faces in Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 99,

187-194.

Farid H and Bravo M, 2010 Image Forensic Analyses that Elude the Human Visual System in SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging, San Jose, CA.

Ostrovsky Y, Cavanagh P, and Sinha P, 2005 Perceiving Illumination Inconsistencies in Scenes in Perception,

34:1301-1314.

[Martin Hinrichs]

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work.

What?¿

Its not buried? So were is it, you claimed MONTHS ago you were "fixing it". Still buried.

He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

I have a company, which has highest priority.

To complete the work i have to fly over the ocean to do a per to per test in Neely. Both real life recreation and measurements of the house.

This work will confirm my work, which is far more based on facts than Farid's.

Oh yea, to "complete the work". Months ago your work was complete. In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.) Problems were correctly pointed out wiht your "perfect" work. Since then its been in hiding. Farid, did what any good scientist would do, he did a proof of concept experiment. Martin is chashing a fools errand, a recreation. Why? Because a perfect recreation photo is impossible. Smart people never try.

In any case exactly how will measurement of the house help with the major problem you have, and thats Oswalds body position? The fact is it won't help one bit. Its a ruse, a smokescreen. Martin can't measure the forward or backward lean of Oswald, all he can do is move him around on a whim, and of course this is his objection to Farid's proof of concept work.

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

So, you have seen this photograph. Now you know what the problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is?????

Shall i attach this photo here to make sure you are the man with problems to understand the issue?

Of course I've seen the one of the photos, and it was a very decent match for the backyard photos for the nose shadow and ground shadow. In fact the photographer told me that after he took the photos he was changing his mind about the backyard photos being fake. So sure, post away Martin. Just make sure it is NOT the photos from the Neely backyard draped in tree shadows. The photographer also did a series in a field closeby.

Of course Martin will nitpick the resulting photos as not being a perfect fit for the backyard, and they are not. Tye are however solid proof of concept.

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them. Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself.

What ?¿

Thats exactly what i asked for several times! You did nothing!

Please show us here your result.

As I've stated more than once I don't post recreation photos, for the very reason you are a fool to think you can do a "recreation". Its impossible to exactly recreat a phtograph. I've been advertising photograpoher for 30 years and I've been asked to recreate photos I have done in the controlled confines of the studio many times. Even with the details of how the original photo was made known to me, and the ability to overlay the new image over the old in the computer while shooting, you can't get an exact match.

I went out and observed the interplay of light and shadow at the correct times. The purpose of the observations were to study the concept and the interconnect of body position and the casting of shadow. That's exactly what I suggest anyone with the interest do for themself.

Now if you want proof of concept images showing how changes in head positon changes the nose shadow, or how body lean, camera height and camera to subject distance change the shadow angle on the ground in relation to an object, I'll be happy to create those photos for you. And again, anyone with an interest can simply try themself and observe with their own eyes.

Your attempts to do a recreation image wil fail also for the same reason. You wil never be able to exactly recreate the perfect head nor body positon for Oswald.

Thank you

I have a correction to make and I did not want it to be an edit.

In the above post I made this statement:

"In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.)"

I was wrong, Martin had not removed his statement on edit, it was posted deeper in the thread in question and I did not spot it until now. My apologies

Hi Craig.

I will try it modest and kind. Thats propably the best way to get a connect with you Craig.

This post will include no sarcasm, no joke...just kindness and honesty.

As a human being i have my strenghts and my weaknesses, but one thing you can be certain of: I'am honest.

As i began my work, i was curious how it will tun out because i scratched my head the same way as Hany Farid did in his video.

It was not my goal to play CT buff and throw something out like: I have something, it was not Oswald.

I'am aware of a lot of flaw stories about the Kennedy assassination. This is one thing for certain i will get avoid of.

I have just one goal: To find out the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'am not a friend of Oswald and i have no reason to defend him. He hit Marina for instance....crap.

And i'am not in for the money. I sell no book, nore anything.

I'am just a defender of the truth.

Ok, as i saw the first renderings using the accurate database from Neely my jaw dropped down.

I said to me...Ok, tried to rotate/shifted his body and head to make sure there will be no mistake.

And i asked John Beckham from Dallas/Texas (a good friend of me) to go to Neely street and make photographs and measure

the fence and the distance from the pole to the fence. A friend as he is, he did.

So, i updated my work. After very much attempts to achieve the same shadows as in the backyard photos i gave up.

And that was the first time i published my work on Duncan's forum.

If my attempt would have been the same as Hany Farid, be sure, i would be the first to say: OK, the shadows are no problem.

But thats not the case Craig.

You disagree and thats OK with me. Everybody can doubt it and can raise questions.

It would have been much more productive to say: Go to rotate his head x degrees to the left/right or his head up or down for example.

I'am not hesitate to do for sure. And would show you very honestly how the result would be.

I have so many rendering attempts from that backyard photo on my hardddisk, you cannot imagine.

It may sound cocky, but i know that 3D field very well because i'am working since 1992 with this tools. (Not Maya by the way which is one of the difficult 3D progams

to learn 3D from scratch). I'am working daily based with it because it's my job.

All i want to say, Craig that my work is honest as it can be.

The reason why i will go to Neely street and to measure the house is, to get the perfect photomatch. Incl. the stairs etc.

That will support my work and an attempt to make it comprehensive as possible.

Another point is that people tend to be suspicious about 3D as a whole.

So i want to create a real life recreation in the backyard. Let's say to show the suncycle on march 31.

To show that the sun at this time in Dallas is too low to create those long shadows under Oswalds nose.

People trust real photos more than anything.

My new comprehensive 3D work shall include a filming animation which will cover rotations of the 3D body with a static sun.

Thats for instance is impossible in a real life recreation. You have just a few minutes until the sun turned further and the chance is over.

I will do this just because of your request, Craig.

If by any chance (which did not) show my work is wrong...you can take me by word. I would disappear.

I have nothing to loose nor to win here. I have just a strong passion for the truth. Thats what is all about.

I hope you will believe me.

One minor question Craig, how long did you wait until you got response from Hany Farid?

I bet he recieved a lot of emails these days.

Can you tell us what he said to you? He did not respond yet to me. But i'am patient.

I will send it again to him in case my email might have end in a spam filter.

Again, this words to you are out of any negativeism nor sarcasm. It 's just honest and kind.

I hope we can discuss matters from now on in a productive modest manner.

Is that Ok with you?

best to you

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

No you haven't read the paper yet,you didn't even bother to watch the video. Thus your criticism is premature.

You can read a summary here:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publicat...erception09.pdf

Len, i watched the video approx a dozen times.

I hoped you read my letter to Hany Farid which is pretty clear i think.

But thanks for the the PDF summary.

Martin

[Jack White]

So far all no one but Martin Hinrichs has offered the first piece of work to dispute Farid's work. And even Martin has buried his work.

What?¿

Its not buried? So were is it, you claimed MONTHS ago you were "fixing it". Still buried.

He first posted it months ago but there were problems. He still has not resolved them, and he suggested he would be ready by the end of May....it’s now November. Martins work is flawed and he knows it, which is why he is still "working on it".

I have a company, which has highest priority.

To complete the work i have to fly over the ocean to do a per to per test in Neely. Both real life recreation and measurements of the house.

This work will confirm my work, which is far more based on facts than Farid's.

Oh yea, to "complete the work". Months ago your work was complete. In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.) Problems were correctly pointed out wiht your "perfect" work. Since then its been in hiding. Farid, did what any good scientist would do, he did a proof of concept experiment. Martin is chashing a fools errand, a recreation. Why? Because a perfect recreation photo is impossible. Smart people never try.

In any case exactly how will measurement of the house help with the major problem you have, and thats Oswalds body position? The fact is it won't help one bit. Its a ruse, a smokescreen. Martin can't measure the forward or backward lean of Oswald, all he can do is move him around on a whim, and of course this is his objection to Farid's proof of concept work.

Martin also has in his possession photographs taken for him by a member of another forum at the time Martin specified and at the location Martin specified. I've seen a copy of the resulting photos and the fits to the backyard photos very good. Martin has a problem.

So, you have seen this photograph. Now you know what the problem with the suncycle and low sun angle is?????

Shall i attach this photo here to make sure you are the man with problems to understand the issue?

Of course I've seen the one of the photos, and it was a very decent match for the backyard photos for the nose shadow and ground shadow. In fact the photographer told me that after he took the photos he was changing his mind about the backyard photos being fake. So sure, post away Martin. Just make sure it is NOT the photos from the Neely backyard draped in tree shadows. The photographer also did a series in a field closeby.

Of course Martin will nitpick the resulting photos as not being a perfect fit for the backyard, and they are not. Tye are however solid proof of concept.

The shadows in the backyard photos are a non issue. There is nothing wrong with them. Don't take my word for it, or Farid's. Test it yourself.

What ?¿

Thats exactly what i asked for several times! You did nothing!

Please show us here your result.

As I've stated more than once I don't post recreation photos, for the very reason you are a fool to think you can do a "recreation". Its impossible to exactly recreat a phtograph. I've been advertising photograpoher for 30 years and I've been asked to recreate photos I have done in the controlled confines of the studio many times. Even with the details of how the original photo was made known to me, and the ability to overlay the new image over the old in the computer while shooting, you can't get an exact match.

I went out and observed the interplay of light and shadow at the correct times. The purpose of the observations were to study the concept and the interconnect of body position and the casting of shadow. That's exactly what I suggest anyone with the interest do for themself.

Now if you want proof of concept images showing how changes in head positon changes the nose shadow, or how body lean, camera height and camera to subject distance change the shadow angle on the ground in relation to an object, I'll be happy to create those photos for you. And again, anyone with an interest can simply try themself and observe with their own eyes.

Your attempts to do a recreation image wil fail also for the same reason. You wil never be able to exactly recreate the perfect head nor body positon for Oswald.

Thank you

I have a correction to make and I did not want it to be an edit.

In the above post I made this statement:

"In fact you claimed it was perfect, so perfect that if you were wrong you would quit posting on JFK. ( I looked and that statement appears to have been removed by you.)"

I was wrong, Martin had not removed his statement on edit, it was posted deeper in the thread in question and I did not spot it until now. My apologies

Hi Craig.

I will try it modest and kind. Thats propably the best way to get a connect with you Craig.

This post will include no sarcasm, no joke...just kindness and honesty.

As a human being i have my strenghts and my weaknesses, but one thing you can be certain of: I'am honest.

As i began my work, i was curious how it will tun out because i scratched my head the same way as Hany Farid did in his video.

It was not my goal to play CT buff and throw something out like: I have something, it was not Oswald.

I'am aware of a lot of flaw stories about the Kennedy assassination. This is one thing for certain i will get avoid of.

I have just one goal: To find out the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'am not a friend of Oswald and i have no reason to defend him. He hit Marina for instance....crap.

And i'am not in for the money. I sell no book, nore anything.

I'am just a defender of the truth.

Ok, as i saw the first renderings using the accurate database from Neely my jaw dropped down.

I said to me...Ok, tried to rotate/shifted his body and head to make sure there will be no mistake.

And i asked John Beckham from Dallas/Texas (a good friend of me) to go to Neely street and make photographs and measure

the fence and the distance from the pole to the fence. A friend as he is, he did.

So, i updated my work. After very much attempts to achieve the same shadows as in the backyard photos i gave up.

And that was the first time i published my work on Duncan's forum.

If my attempt would have been the same as Hany Farid, be sure, i would be the first to say: OK, the shadows are no problem.

But thats not the case Craig.

You disagree and thats OK with me. Everybody can doubt it and can raise questions.

It would have been much more productive to say: Go to rotate his head x degrees to the left/right or his head up or down for example.

I'am not hesitate to do for sure. And would show you very honestly how the result would be.

I have so many rendering attempts from that backyard photo on my hardddisk, you cannot imagine.

It may sound cocky, but i know that 3D field very well because i'am working since 1992 with this tools. (Not Maya by the way which is one of the difficult 3D progams

to learn 3D from scratch). I'am working daily based with it because it's my job.

All i want to say, Craig that my work is honest as it can be.

The reason why i will go to Neely street and to measure the house is, to get the perfect photomatch. Incl. the stairs etc.

That will support my work and an attempt to make it comprehensive as possible.

Another point is that people tend to be suspicious about 3D as a whole.

So i want to create a real life recreation in the backyard. Let's say to show the suncycle on march 31.

To show that the sun at this time in Dallas is too low to create those long shadows under Oswalds nose.

People trust real photos more than anything.

My new comprehensive 3D work shall include a filming animation which will cover rotations of the 3D body with a static sun.

Thats for instance is impossible in a real life recreation. You have just a few minutes until the sun turned further and the chance is over.

I will do this just because of your request, Craig.

If by any chance (which did not) show my work is wrong...you can take me by word. I would disappear.

I have nothing to loose nor to win here. I have just a strong passion for the truth. Thats what is all about.

I hope you will believe me.

One minor question Craig, how long did you wait until you got response from Hany Farid?

I bet he recieved a lot of emails these days.

Can you tell us what he said to you? He did not respond yet to me. But i'am patient.

I will send it again to him in case my email might have end in a spam filter.

Again, this words to you are out of any negativeism nor sarcasm. It 's just honest and kind.

I hope we can discuss matters from now on in a productive modest manner.

Is that Ok with you?

best to you

Martin

Martin...before you do any recreation, you should see my videos FAKE and THE MANY FACES

OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD (both available free online). They may be very instructive for you.

For instance, measurements in the backyard today will throw you off, since the stairway

has been rebuilt, and the support post is under a different step.

Also, the yard today is fenced off, and you are not allowed inside to take measurements.

For the sun location, see Phillips A DEEPER, DARKER TRUTH, page 115.

Jack