Dartmouth Professor finds that iconic Oswald photo was not faked

[Guesswhokk]

Many amateurs mistaken Apollo's moon landing photos about shadows positioning as well and claim it was a fake without testing, but the special effect guys from mythbuster build a scale 3D model to show shadows can play tricks in your head.

We need forensic reasoning to determine fake photos not some loud mouth who say alot, but done no testing or trials in real life.

[Courshon]

Wow. This is a really poor explanation, and erroneous. 3-D computer modeling to examine where the light should cast shadows on his face? Maybe so, but that's not shown or proven in this video clip. Just go outside at 4pm-ish (or the time approximate to duplicate the shadow on the ground), and look at where the shadows would fall on your face, your upper lip, your neck. It won't be like in the famous Oswald photo.

[VanillaKilla8]

who gives a fuck about the shadows on stuff that was obviously just a picture of Oswald in his back yard? the rifle was the only faked part

[OhWhatsisname17]

The chin on the first model of the head he showed is different from the chin on the head he showed when comparing it to the photograph

[lola4jvb4lho]

The prof (his lab long funded by CIA) only used ONE photo and ONE head,and didn't check to see that the OTHER heads on the other photos ALL MATCH--an impossibility. Sure, the photos were faked, as anybody who knows anything about photography knows. Yes, the chopped fingers are a joke. Also, guy is wearing a watch. LHO owned a pocket watch and only wore an ID bracelet. The elbow is also chopped off in one photo. Ground shadows move way too far between photos to have been taken only minutes apart.

[MumblingMickey]

There were three photos.... and the only thing imposed of course would be the easiest bit... the face...

Of course in the early 1960's one is limited to physical cut and paste and then placing these on a board and taking a photo of the composite image.

Most people who use photoshop including myself would agree the photos have been altered... I don't know why...and I don't really care... but it has been altered.

Specifically the right hand holding the newspaper... even a novice can see that!

[lola4jvb4lho]

@MumblingMickey But of course we should care!Of course it matters1 What if it had been your son who was framed for the murder of JFK? Your husband? By LHO being framed, the real killers never came to justice, and THEY, in fact,went on to make sure we never could elect anyone except who they let go to the to.? Like what our country has become? It DOES matter! We can still trace back who sponsored our current corrupt government goons.

[MumblingMickey]

@lola4jvb4lho Well that's cos you are probably of the opinion that those who run a nation all do so for the primary purpose of governance of that said nation. However that's not the case.

We couldn't allow a few hundred people run a nation of millions.

Thankfully there are systems in place that happily give one the idea that all is well and society is governed by its population. You'd need to trace back into antiquity for the truth, its never been any other way than it is and always has been!

[MumblingMickey]

@lola4jvb4lho Plus its been tried and the outcome is that those who insist we should all govern our affairs more effectively are the very same people who covet power.

So if we really want to find a truly ethical, effective system without corruption then I'm afraid we also need to not be humans. instinctively those at the bottom complain about those at the top, until they are at the top, then they complain about those at the bottom!

You should never elect anyone who asks for your vote!

[usarmycaptainamerica]

He also is only speaking of 1 photo of three, that were supposed to be taken seconds apart.

In another picture that long shadow under the nose is identical in the other pic with Oswalds head now angled.

Missing finger tips on the hand, missing end of the scope etc...

[beaviselectron]

The light ands the shadows? Is this man an idiot? Search for Jack White's "FAKE" for a very detailed analysis of the CONTENT of the photo (crop lines, matte insertions, weapon length, center of gravity, size of the newspapers, the absence of the end of the scope, neck size, etc). He's either dishonest or ignorant.

[Smithfilmproductions]

Marina Oswald took the photo. What part of it's real do you people not understand?

[lola4jvb4lho]

He used ONE photo, and it happens to be the suspicious George DeMohrenschildt COPY --never made of pixels, either. Farid fails to say the HEAD in all the backyard photos is precisely the SAME,with just a tilt or some retouching done--the heads, reduced to the same size, all fit identically --eyes,nose, etc. meaning Oswald supposedly NEVER MOVED HIS HEAD TO EITHER SIDE EVEN A SINGLE DEGREE IN ANY PHOTO. IMPOSSIBLE. You can't shoot several photos in a row with no deviation of head plane. Faked!

[MumblingMickey]

@lola4jvb4lho I think the missing finger tops where he was originally holding something round like a glass is more telling... and to be honest the fact that such a high degree of 1960's imaging technology was invested in this is more telling... but whatever the reason for such an investment of time, money and technology the images have been altered... clearly altered, its not in dispute by anyone who works with images... we all know its been altered... what we don't know is WHY!

[Fourbrick]

Farid studied just ONE photograph to try to justify the shadow under LHO's nose. He didn't even consider the other two photos which show discrepancies in theangles of the shadows of the LHO's body and rifle, as well as the inconsistencies of camera angle changes not affecting background subjects. He built a 3d model just to support his argument about Oswald's nose and missed all the other anomalies.

Some forensic scientist !!!!

[ImeldaDavies]

Ah primarily the crop mark under the chin. Lol its not the light angles which have always been debateable and the dodgey trail of evidence and ownership. What about the other angles of the objects to the side of Oswald. Hes just focussed soley on one figure.

Even if, just if it aint fake, this proves nothing in the long term both of the commie newspapers he held up were incompatible and what of the police experiments with a cutout as shown by Bob Groden. Oswald said the pics were fake himself.

[1melahat]

The photo is fake. See the documentary by Craig Maurer with photo expert Jack White picking the photo apart in about a dozen places. Computer analysis can be made to show whatever the programer intended like the ridiculous computer analyzation of the WTC collapse made by con artist;Popular Mechanics.

[medqua]

He doesn't even mention what software did he use, this isn't serious at all.

[ChristianHolloway]

why are people looking at this pic? his X wife told us years ago she took it lol. the fbi didnt fake it.

[jaysonvalentine]

If Farid was honest, he might have a point. However, it bugs me that he does not show the computations made to create his 3D models. He could have easily programmed the shadows to match. Also, he is very minimalist in terms of analyzing the background by obmitting the majority of the photo's information.

[Recon680]

lol. The paper he is holding is 11'. When compaired to the man holding it we are given a height of like 4,9". Wow ! that's gr8! except oswald was 5, 10' or close to it........explain that.

[PsychoSpammer]

The guys supposed to be a forensic scientist examining a picture and the first thing he does is post a disclaimer saying he is "not very good at this"

WTF?

[csmakio]

Hes talking about how human beings precieve things........

[Radacoin]

I think there was a greater conspiracy, but I don't think the government was involved. The CIA and FBI knew it would make them look extremely bad to have failed to uncover the conspiracy, so J. Edgar Hoover ordered the cover up. With the "lone nut" theory, they would not be blamed for JFK's death because there is no way they could be held responsible for finding every lone nutjob.

As for who the conspirators are, I don't think that can be proven yet, not until the FBI declassifies all the docs

[omnimodis78]

The "professor" has no credibility. Support him all you want, but don't go watching this video and conclude that his research is credible, accurate or sincere. Those of us who are intimately familiar with this photograph (and the rest which were found along with this), understand the anomalies in these photos. Some of us are not amateurs, or conspiracy buffs, but have real forensic expertise. This professor's research is flawed.

[xxZaharoulaxx]

It appears that this "professor" has worked for the FBI. He defends them in court when they are accused of doctoring images.

[ExecutePy6]

Lee Harvey is Steve Carell !

[bloodclot78]

awsum

[jellyadult]

wat about the other backyard photos thou?

zoom in and look at his fingers they have been cut short!!!!!!!!oswalds fingers that is

[Jschlaaeter333]

I think what the man was trying to say was regardless of technology, images and photographs cannot be faked even today... so be careful of what you wish for.

[fixingbraincell]

uhmmm is this an apple ad?

[Balthusdire2008]

Yeah, thats what I kept wondering.

[flowerpt]

Nice, but I was actually expecting some of the statistical analysis as in prior work - curious if this photo was also analyzed using that technique.

[pikmindoctor]

Seems pretty convincing to me. I'm sure the police and government do terrible things, but probably more out of individuals neglect and indifference than actual plotting.

[insanic1]

yeah do the fake holocaust photos

[trylonperisphere]

"We have to build 3D models" or we could just go outside on a sunny day and see if the shadows roughly match any random person.

[burrdturgler]

"you can't see but"

"about right"

"maybe a little bit of the scene around him"

"more or less"

"my favorite part"

"everything is perfect"

"100% perfect"

... "you've got to bring more rational reasoning to these types of things ..."

[Byfbowhiffen]

Your not going to be 100% accurate...

The nose just needed to be generally the correct size. The shadows are also not as perfect as he had said but it accurately depicts what was shown in the photograph.

You also don't have to model an entire scene in order to get these sorts of results, just the most influential parts like lighting bouncing off a house or reflective object. What would be the point in modeling every twig and rock if they aren't going to yield any sort of significant result.

[SharkBite55]

JFK...

Blown Away...

By the CIA...

Coup d'tat in the USA...

Burn in hell Hoover Edgar J.

High Treason in America.

[aalhazzred]

Non sequitur - That shows the shadows are correct, nothing more.

Does the Professor content it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do this in the 60s? Hardly, in fact, if you were going to fake a picture you would look for a picture of his head to match up the shadows at the same time of day. Words like exactly and perfectly and "impossible" betray a lack of objectivity there are enough variables here to drive a truck through

Case still not closed.

Keep trying though.

[waysworth]

when I look at the Oswald / Model shadows in the computer, the nose and eye-socket shadows appear completely different. the model's socket shadows are not nearly as long, and the nose shadow is very much more triangular, suggesting (if the model was fairly accurate) that the light source was higher on the real face.

[eraserfoot]

Never mind. This just in from Wikipedia: (1964)A panel of twenty-two photographic experts consulted by the HSCA examined the photographs and answered twenty-one points of contention raised by critics.[148] The panel concluded the photographs were genuine." No need to re-hash the issue. I guess the professor was just demonstrating what his computer can do.

[eraserfoot]

Why wasnt a photographer hired way back then to determine if the photograph was faked? And who was it that made this claim? After reading about this, the thought immediately came to mind why not simply go back to the place the photo was taken and, with a similar proportioned model, just wait for the sun to cast the appropriate shadows... Whats the big deal? No computing power needed. How could something so obvious take 40 some odd years to be solved? Am I missing something?

[omnimodis78]

What BS - I don't care if this is fake or real, but this guy isn't presenting a scientifically viable work he is presenting you with a very unscientific "conclusion". Don't simply watch this video and think that this issue is over. This photo has been studied by people far more qualified than this professor, who looked at all the inconsistencies in this photo, and concluded that there are major anomalies. Professor, for your own professional reputation, pull this video off.

[Bugstomper2]

@omnimodis78; Basically, with the computer mimicking the lighting in the picture, the shadows came out exactly the same! That means it wasn't faked, or the computer would have produced different shadow results. Qualifications mean nothing, compared to the cold hard reality that computer software can produce.

[omnimodis78]

@Bugstomper2 - The best way to demonstrate this would be to create and present a dynamic lighting pattern inside a fully recreated 3D environment. What he presents us is a static 2D recreation of the photograph which essentially simply clones the original image. Show us the angle of the light source, move that light source in the 3D environment, and show where the shadows fall then, and finally move the light source in its final position and let's see where the shadows end up.

[ChrisJKop1]

omni, please be respectful. I am a Dartmouth student and know that this professor spent a great deal of time to do a very scientific analysis. It is very difficult to explicate all this work into a 5 minute video, especially at a level that can be understood by the general public with minimum previous knowledge on the subject.

[omnimodis78]

@ChrisJKop1, I agree that youtube isn't the right forum for credible scientific debate, but I don't think I made any disrespectful comments. I don't think that a professor is any more competent at some things than a would-be amateur, as long as the investigation is objective. This professor, though, doesn't sound like he is objective and makes some very inaccurate statements. This devalues his research and discredits his presentation.

[sukitrebek]

couldn't the same tools be used by forgers to create better forgeries as well?

[sukitrebek]

i.e. in the future. obviously the photo in question in this video was not forged using the same tools.

[fireemblem555]

Not in the 1960s though

[sukitrebek]

Uh, yeah, that's why I said "in the future."

[fireemblem555]

I posted that comment between the first one, and the in the future reply you made.

[sukitrebek]

oh ok :)

[chrispower1981]

As much as I wish this would make all the various nut jobs rethink how they have wasted their life chasing imaginary villains, sadly this will not come to pass. They have already filed this new information under "He's Part of the Conspiracy" and have started to look for all the reasons to discredit Science, because all Science knows how to do is prove how Pathetic Conspiracy Nuts really are...

[RallydeBotz]

There are other anomalies in the photos besides shadows.

[fluxxus]

Such as? Why did LHO's mom say she destroyed a similar photo?

[filthyphillyboy]

Thanks for using some level headed reasoning with technology instead of going off half cocked like so many do regarding this issue.

[blinking801]

Cool! I would love to learn these techniques to too bad school is so expensive.

[powerbookg]

see: Financial Aid