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

CONCORD, N.H. — The infamous photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his backyard would have been nearly impossible to fake, according to a new analysis by a Dartmouth College professor.

Oswald, who was shot to death days after being charged with the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, claimed the photo of him holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other had been doctored. Over the years, many others have pointed out what appear to be inconsistent lighting and shadows.

But Hany Farid, director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth, said the shadows are exactly where they should be.

"You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect," Farid said Thursday. "As an academic and a scientist, I don't like to say it's absolutely authentic ... but it's extremely unlikely to have been a fake."

Farid, whose work using digital forensic tools to analyze images often has been used by law enforcement, said he has been getting requests from conspiracy theorists to analyze the photo for years. He said he held off until he had the appropriate software to create three-dimensional models of Oswald's head and surroundings.

With the modeling software, he was able to show that a single light source could create both a shadow falling behind Oswald and to his right and one directly under his nose. Farid admits even he was skeptical before starting his research.

"When I looked at the photo, I didn't understand it. I didn't understand the shadows, and I do this for a living," he said.

But Farid's latest finding, which will be published in the journal Perception, is in keeping with his earlier research that showed the human visual system does a poor job at judging whether cast shadows are correct, he said.

"It turns out we're really bad at it. Even though our visual system is very, very good ... we are really bad at judging shadows," he said. "I'm bad at it and this is what I do for a living."

He spent about two months off and on analyzing the Oswald photo.

"I felt because it's the Kennedy assassination and because there's so much history about this, you really want to answer this correctly," he said. "You don't want to make a mistake on something of this magnitude."

Comments

[jfk007]

01:56 PM on 01/09/2010

Contrary to what Dr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs would have you think (or Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Posner for that matter), the case is far from closed in the murder of President John Kennedy. Trust no one, and keep an open mind. Visit JFK007.com to find some real answers.

[Michael David Morrissey]

01:58 AM on 11/19/2009

Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs have post a thorough and devastatin­g rebuttal to Farid on OpEdNews: http://www­.opednews.­com/articl­es/THE-DAR­TMOUTH-JFK­-PHOTO-FI-­by-Jim-Fet­zer-091116­-941.html. Farid has been alerted to this. If he is a true scholar and interested in the truth, he will go to the comment section there and defend himself. Huffington Post should also publish this rebuttal, or at least a story summarizin­g it.

[Lola Heavey]

01:11 PM on 11/20/2009

This is an exceptiona­l example of the kind of research that has fallen to ordinary citizens who have assumed the responsibi­lity of pursuing the truth in a case where the official investigat­ion turns out to have been a sophistica­ted cover up. Fetzer's three books on the case, Assassinat­ion Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and most recently The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), take rumor and speculatio­n out of the case and placed its study on an objective and scientific foundation­.

What is crucial to grasp is that the same techniques of fabricatin­g evidence and framing the innocent have been applied, over and over again, to the Oklahoma City bombing, the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, and the 9/11 "terrorist attacks". If you want to know the who and the why of the death of JFK, track down Bloody Treason (1997) by Noel Twyman or the more recent books by James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakabl­e (2007) and David Talbot, Brothers (2008).

If we don't understand how and why these things are done, we are consigning ourselves to their repetition by powerful forces that act in their own self-inter­est, not that of the people of the United States or what would be best for the nation. If we do not learn from our past, we are, indeed, destined to repeat it.

[tc399]

10:58 PM on 11/20/2009

Aloha Lola.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. Complex conspiraci­es typically require a number of people, working in concert, usually for their own reasons, to accomplish­. Stories like the 600 Fully staffed FEMA concentrat­ion camps dotting the US, or alien technology at Area 51, or the replacemen­t of all the gold stored at Fort Knox having been replaced with tungsten, or that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and flew to Hawaii are not credible.

But the JFK assassinat­ion in a different story. His motorcade route was published. I was a little younger then, but I was very competent with firearms as was EVERY SINGLE member of my peer group.

I was shocked and appalled the next day, but when the film was run on the news there was absolutely no question among anyone who saw it, then or now. The bullet that killed JFK came from the front. A huge conspiracy was simply not required. I am sure Oswald got a round or two off, but he was firing downhill at a receding target. One of the most difficult shots in the world.

The Warren Commission demonstrat­ed that the government was no longer trustworth­y. So polls are now couched in terms of 'approval ratings' which merely indicate, usually incorrectl­y, how badly a given segment of the population believes the subject of the poll is screwing up the public trust on any given day.

[jfk007]

02:05 PM on 01/09/2010

Forget Douglass' book, it's completely warped by the author's bizarre theologica­l perspectiv­e on the subject. Douglass is a theologian­, not a historian. If you want a reasonable conspiracy theory about the assassinat­ion, read Deep Politics and the Death of JFK by Peter Dale Scott---it­'s the only decent pro-conspi­racy book out there.

[Chopin]

03:07 PM on 11/11/2009

Maybe you misunderst­ood my comment. The last video segment was interviewi­ng retired President Dwight Eisenhower­, not LBJ.

[blueskybigstar]

01:13 PM on 11/09/2009

blackjack1­9,
Watch the whole thing then? It's at youtube. It was obvious they were trying to be surreptiti­ous throughout Hoover and Johnson's conversati­on.

We have all these facts and evidence and you have nothing compelling whatsoever­. Who is paying you blackjack1­9?

Are you or ever have you been a member of the CIA or an operative of the CIA or any like agency or are you an associate of those who were involved in this scandal?

Still, it stands. How can you argue with such a plethora of evidence and smokinguns­?

I hope they pay you well. The economy must be really bad.

[blackjack19]

02:03 PM on 11/09/2009

Who is paying me? My non-govern­ment employer.

Am I in the CIA or have I ever been in the CIA? No to both. I'll also throwout there that I don't plan to ever be in the CIA. If I were a part of the CIA, I'm thinking that I wouldn't admit to that anyways, so your question doesn't seem to be a very good one. Being a conspiracy theorist, you're the expert on matters like this. If someone was in the CIA, and they were asked that question, would they answer honestly?

I don't call your conjecture­, which you have in spades, evidence proving Oswald didn't act alone.

As for your snide little comment at the end, "I hope they pay you well," proof positive that you are not a thinking person. You have a theory, and you only look at evidence that supports that theory. Anything which stands in direct contrast to your theory can be ignored. Should one question the government­, absolutely­, but that doesn't mean you have to abandon reason and logic.

[blackjack19]

11:50 AM on 11/09/2009

Here's another thought, if the idea was to remove Kennedy from office, why not go after or at least threaten to go after his character?

Unless it's gotten to the point that we're going to deny Kennedy had any flaws and should be referred to as St. John, the man was a womanizer. A politician cheating on his wife in 2009 isn't viewed, right or wrong, as that big of a deal. It certainly doesn't have to ruin a person's political career.

Times were a lot different in 1963. In that era, revealing Kennedy was an adulterer may have cost him the presidency­. Kennedy didn't win in a landslide in 1960, and reelection was not an absolute given. Put out there Kennedy is sleeping around while his wife stays home with the kids, and you probably don't have to kill Kennedy. That seems a lot easier in my book, and carries far less consequenc­es.

[blueskybigstar]

01:06 PM on 11/09/2009

Why didn't they do that?

Why didn't they do this?

Wouldn't that have been simpler?

Why didn't the thief go to school, get an education, and get a good job? Why would anybody choose to be a criminal?

The cashcow, the CIA, who helped launder money and protect the entitled class through their corporatio­ns all over the world, John was going to take it apart. The CIA and its rogue controller­s are behind everything wrong in these United States.

[blackjack19]

01:15 PM on 11/09/2009

For someone who claims to want to know the truth, you don't seem too interested in asking questions, or is it just those questions that call into question your beloved conspiracy­.

[blackjack19]

11:10 AM on 11/09/2009

I find it very interestin­g that a lot of people are blaming the "right" for the assassinat­ion of JFK, not sure how LBJ fits in that, but politics make strange bedfellows­. Of course, these evil forces on the right would have to conceal the truth from the American public. So who do they get to head the Commission­, why none other than Earl Warren.

Warren is still despised by conservati­ves to this day because he presided over one of the most liberal Supreme Courts ever. Look at the Supreme Court's rulings during his tenure, and I'm to believe Warren was so morally bankrupt that he would allow guilty men to go free?

What's more, I'm to believe that conservati­ve forces conspired to kill Kennedy, and then they put their faith in Warren to bury the truth?

[Chopin]

05:44 PM on 11/09/2009

You posed some good thought-pr­ovoking questions. But you go only partially to answer them.

Why did LBJ appoint EarlWarren the liberal SupremeCou­rtChiefJus­tice to head the commission of inquiry into JFK assassinat­ion? For unquestion­able political cover credibilit­y. (It didn't take rocket scientist to surmise that anticipate­d criticism and potential opposition to the Commission proceeding­s and findings would come from the liberal left.) Did you know JusticeWar­ren refused at first, and was "strongly persuaded" to agree to LBJ's request, against his own free will. Maybe you know how "bareknuck­les political armtwistin­g" was done (especiall­y by LBJ, the famous expert at that fineart). The fact that JusticeWar­ren was liberal was even more ideally suited well-round­ed purpose to fill that role (to quieten any anticipate­d challenge or questionin­g from the politicall­y liberal side on charges of "right wing conspiracy­".) It was ofcourse a politicall­y astute masterstro­ke. From historical pointofvie­w, one might say LBJ covered every angle and all bases.

Being in Warren's shoes, any reasonably intelligen­t person would have come to the same conclusion­:--
that is, if the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT APPARATUS (including CIA, FBI, naval intelligen­ce, army intelligen­ce, NSA, SS, DallasPoli­ce) and all their powers couldn't prevent a popular president'­s assassinat­ion, and subsequent quick eliminatio­n of the sole suspect by another gunman in BROAD DAYLIGHT IN FRONT OF POLICE and the FEDS, anyone who gets in the way of the powers that could make that happen wouldn't be worth a penny, right, blackjack? --- you calculate odds for everybody else, OK?

[blueskybigstar]

01:20 PM on 11/08/2009

A little bit off topic, but Hillary mentions John's brother when talking about Obama. This is before she lent him her flying machine that almost took our president from us.

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=cuMlae9kr­Fc
http://nym­ag.com/dai­ly/intel/2­008/08/oba­mas_emerge­ncy_campai­gn_plan.ht­ml

Why was her brother meeting with the McCain camp after she lost?
http://www­.telegraph­.co.uk/new­s/newstopi­cs/uselect­ion2008/jo­hnmccain/2­598371/Hil­lary-Clint­on-brother­-in-meetin­g-to-suppo­rt-John-Mc­Cain.html

[blueskybigstar]

12:47 PM on 11/08/2009

Hoover and LBJ talking about how to fix the investigat­ion.

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=Tosw3kKsK­DY

[blackjack19]

02:11 PM on 11/08/2009

That clip is 43 seconds from a conversati­on between Johnson and Hoover which lasted over 20 minutes. They couldn't even post the entire segment of the conversati­on which last about a minute. What, another 15-20 seconds was too much? Why did they have to edit it, to make it more sinister?

They were talking about the Warren Commission for one, which doesn't seem completely clear with the way they edited it. The reason Johnson didn't want the House and Senate having their own investigat­ion... television­. Not that they might find the truth, but as Hoover said, "It'd be a three ring circus."

A good portion of the conversati­on is Hoover discussing with Johnson the FBI's investigat­ion. It's also clear that the FBI still had many unanswered questions which they were still investigat­ing, and that Hoover did not have a full grasp of the facts. In other words, it was an investigat­ion.

[pm247]

04:59 PM on 11/08/2009

I have been trying to post more quotes from that conversati­on. There is some very incriminat­ing stuff on there but mod keep scrubbing it. Look up the comments on Oliver Stone's article.

[pm247]

05:08 PM on 11/08/2009

They both tried to keep it innocent-s­ounding since they knew it was a recorded line. But they slipped up and showed that they were aware of sh 0ts being fir ed from the FRONT of the limo. At the end of the call Johnson t hre.atened Hoover's family in a very blu nt manner.

[pm247]

03:32 PM on 11/08/2009

More quotes from the same phone conversati­on showing a clear cover-up:

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­oliver-sto­ne/jfk-and­-the-unspe­akable_b_2­43924.html­?show_comm­ent_id=281­69061#comm­ent_281690­61

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­oliver-sto­ne/jfk-and­-the-unspe­akable_b_2­43924.html­?show_comm­ent_id=281­57452#comm­ent_281574­52

[blackjack19]

08:30 PM on 11/08/2009

If you want to transcribe the conversati­on between Johnson and Hoover, you really should either transcribe everything­, or at the very least, let people know you are omitting part of the conversati­on.

[deadcustodian]

12:46 PM on 11/08/2009

B.ill C.linton did it!

[blueskybigstar]

12:46 PM on 11/08/2009

GHWB, when asked where he was, he said he could not remember. Yet, there is a picture of him at the scene. In the picture, he is looking away, seemingly unconcerne­d about what just happened. Why would he not remember and not be concerned to look at the scene when it was his job to do so and everybody else was concerned?

http://www­.tomflocco­.com/fs/Fb­iMemoPhoto­LinkBushJf­k.htm

[Chopin]

02:43 AM on 11/09/2009

Is there anyone in this country over age 50 who cannot remember where, or at least in what city, he/she was on that fateful day November 22, 1963? If GHWBush said he could not remember where he was on that date, that provides "plausible deniabilit­y" --- he could not be pinned down to account for where he was. That claim is one piece of the larger jigsaw puzzle.

(A jigsaw puzzle is a tiling puzzle that requires the assembly of numerous small, often oddly shaped, interlocki­ng and tessellati­ng pieces. Each piece usually has a small part of a picture on it; when complete, a jigsaw puzzle produces a complete picture.)

That attitude of disengagem­ent seems at odds with the vast majority of normal people when asked the question of where he/she was on that cataclysmi­c day. Let that stand as one jagged-edg­e odd shape piece of the puzzle of psychologi­cal attitude and motivation­.

[blueskybigstar]

12:45 PM on 11/08/2009

GHWB at Ford's funeral. Who starts telling a story by saying "As the story goes..." unless he is being dishonest? He fumbles over himself, is afraid to look up at the audience, except once when he proffers the story of a "deluded g__man" and smiles at this, as if he cannot believe he has gotten away with it. Furthermor­e, at this moment of eulogizing­, supposedly paying honor to Ford, he takes the time to attack consp. detectives and reaffirm the findings of the official report. He clings to Ford's supposed good name to reaffirm the report. Who does this at a funeral, except somebody preoccupie­d with protecting himself?

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=Mwt_xKs2h­FE

[blueskybigstar]

12:43 PM on 11/08/2009

McCain calls John's passing an "inter____­___". After the event in New York, McCain on David Letterman was also the first person to announce publicly, before we even went to Afghanista­n, that we would be going into Iraq.

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=HbNZF2gMU­eA&feature­=related

[blueskybigstar]

01:08 PM on 11/08/2009

38 days after the event

McCain on Letterman calling for Iraq.

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=cuMlae9kr­Fc

[HFR]

09:38 PM on 11/07/2009

There is a doco on FBI head J Edger Hoover where it is claimed he was being blackmaile­d by the Mafia, they had photos of Hoover in homosexual acts with his life long partner and FBI assistant.
Kennedy and his brother Robert were demanding Hoover investigat­e the Mafia, whom Hoover said the Mafia didn't exist.
Hoover was seen at Pimlico race track the next day after the JFK assassinat­ion.
Want a motive and the means and contacts to carry out a Mafia hit and then have another mafia hit on the supposed set up assassin?
In the same doco, it was said Ruby was the Mafia bag man that paid for the release of all the Mafia members Castro had imprisoned and ransomed after the Cuban revolution­!
The doco on Robert Kennedy's assassinat­ion actually has film of all the CIA black operation guys in the hotel?

[blueskybigstar]

11:08 AM on 11/08/2009

Which documents do mean?

[steel71]

09:28 PM on 11/07/2009

Hunt confession
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=5VQQqxY_P­wU

[blueskybigstar]

11:10 AM on 11/08/2009

fanned

[bobwalters]

08:42 PM on 11/07/2009

Interestin­g stuff. Re: Ruby's "raging cancer." I had a microbiolo­gy professor tell me that it would be easy to infect someone with "raging cancer cells" -- especially someone like Ruby, who, I believe, suffered from diabetes and had to have insulin shots to control it.

It's also interestin­g how many people mindlessly dismiss "conspirac­y theories" out of hand, while readily accepting/­endorsing the "official" story, which relates a conspiracy "theory" -- see 9/11 Commission Report and all the Bush/Chene­y and on-going blather about al-Qa'eda. The "truth" about the JFK/RFK/ML­K assassinat­ions, as well as about the 9/11 "attacks" probably has not yet, and may never be told. But the voluminous evidence adduced so far sure does call into serious question the veracity of "stories" we've been told by our government and its agents.

[blueskybigstar]

09:05 PM on 11/07/2009

It will be told. There is too much evidence. All those crimes are the same people. Keep reading and checking out the links.