Iconic Lee Harvey Oswald Photo is no Fake, Dartmouth Professor

The backyard photo of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle and Marxist newspaper was called a fake by Oswald when he was interrogated by Dallas police after his arrest.

The image had fueled conspiracy theorists who said the image must have been faked because of the unusual shadows.

Now, Dartmouth Professor Hany Farid, a computer scientist and authority on forensic imaging, has determined definitively that the image is, indeed, real.

In this YouTube video, he demonstrates how three dimensional modeling was used in reaching his conclusion.

Professor Farid's finding will be published in the peer-reviewed academic journal "Perception".

Here is the AP report.

Disclosure: Dartmouth College is a client of Plesser Holland public relations

 

Follow Andy Plesser on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Beet_TV

Comments

[James Fetzer]

Jim Marrs and I have settled this question for those who are unfamiliar with the history of its study:

THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO
Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs

Description: A Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, claims that it is "extremely unlikely" that backyard photographs of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald are fake based on a digital analysis of shadows. Had he conducted a literature search, he would have known that the shadows are but one of multiple indications of fakery. Even if he were right about the shadows, he would be wrong about the photos, one of which was published in LIFE.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html

Jim Fetzer has chaired or co-chaired four national conferences, edited three books and produced a 4 1/2 hour documentary on the death of JFK. He co-edits the on-line journal assassinat­ionrearch.­com.

Jim Marrs, one of our nation's foremost investigative journalists, has authored many books, but is best known for "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy", which was a basis for Oliver Stone's film, "JFK".

[James Fetzer]

Jim Marrs and I have settled this question, for those who are unfamiliar with the history of its study:

THE DARTMOUTH JFK-PHOTO FIASCO
Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs

Description: A Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, claims that it is "extremely unlikely" that backyard photographs of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald are fake based on a digital analysis of
shadows. Had he conducted a literature search, he would have known that the shadows are but one of multiple indications of fakery. Even if he were right about the shadows, he would be wrong about the photos, one of which was published in LIFE.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-DARTMOUTH-JFK-PHOTO-FI-by-Jim-Fetzer-091116-941.html

Jim Fetzer has chaired or co-chaired four national conferences, edited three
books and produced a 4 1/2 hour documentary on the death of JFK. He co-edits
the on-line journal assassinat­ionrearch.­com.

Jim Marrs, one of our nation's foremost investigative journalists, has
authored many books, but is best known for "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed
Kennedy", which was a basis for Oliver Stone's film, "JFK".

[LisaPease]

One expert says one thing, another expert says the opposite. There are no experts, and new technology doesn't make it true. If the photo was cut together and reshot, there'd be no alteration detectable.

And it isn't just because of the shadows - it's because of the other pictures that show his head in a different proportion to the body.

But none of this matters anyway - stories like this are a mere distraction. Why don't we talk about the fact that the CIA lied to the Warren Commission about their relationship with Oswald? Why don't we ask the CIA why they lied to other agencies about what they knew about Oswald, and even what he looked like, just six weeks before the assassination? And we know they were lying, because in the same two hour time period they sent accurate data to another CIA center.

[TheGripester]

So what do you say to the roll of photos that Marina Oswald took that day? Are those all also fakes? And what would be the point of faking anything, when it is easily proven that Oswald was agitating and was trying to paint himself as some half-baked reincarnation of Trotsky?

But you are absolutely wrong when you say "there are no experts." There are thousands of forensic scientists who actually make a living testifying in court over the analysis of just these kinds of things. I trust them more than I would trust an offhand comment on Huffington Post.

[TheGripester]

Dead silence. Okay, so you have no response to the fact that this photo is from a roll of photos, all of which are obviously from the same time of day and not noticeably odd. You have no response to the fact that Oswald was openly vocal in a somewhat crazy pro-Cuban demonstration, which this photo was created as part of. Saying that "none of this matters" and sloughing it off does not excuse you from your argument. You have not proven your point. Marina took the photos, and freely admitted to it.

You have no response to the fact that the vast majority of books sold about JFK's assassination argue that there was a conspiracy, making your statement that Posner's book and the like have been the real money-makers. And, by the way, the fact that you have worked on it without being paid just means that you have not published a book - it does not make you a saint, or qualified to judge another's morality wholesale.

[DConway]

Ummm. Tell us something we didn't already know. Marina Oswald admitted she took the photos and Oswald's own Mother destroyed another photo in the sequence. There are/ were at least five photos in the series. JFK researchers have known this for years.

[TheGripester]

Btw, this conclusion has already been verified by comparative photography of shadow patterns and analysis of the grain patterns in the original photo. Not to mention, once again, that Marina Oswald took a whole roll of these shots and verified that they were taken and also that her husband was a prime-grade nut job.

[TheGripester]

Oh, for Pete's sake! There's a whole roll of photos that Oswald had his wife take in his backyard. This is just one of them. Did the CIA or whoever fake the whole roll? One moment of Oswald trying to cover his bacon right after being arrested in claiming the photo was faked = whole crackpot industry.

We need more people like Hany Farid and Gerald Posner to refute the cynical exploitation of this tragic moment in America's history. I have a conspiracy theory of my own - that JFK conspiracy theorists are more interested in selling their books than accurately researching their topic.

[LisaPease]

What an idiotic comment. The JFK books that have made money have been the ones like Posner's piece of crap. Why do I call it crap? For example - quoting from History Professor David Wrone's review:

" Massive numbers of factual errors suffuse the book, which make it a veritable minefield. Random samples are the following: Pontchartrain is a lake not a river. The wounded James Tague stood twenty feet east, not under the triple underpass. There were three Philip Geracis, not one; he confuses the second and the third. A tiny fragment, not a bullet, entered Connally's thigh. The Army did the testing that he refers to the FBI. None, not three, commissioners heard at least half the hearings. The Warren Commission did not have any investigators. Captain Donovan is John, not Charles, and a lieutenant. The critics of the official findings are not leftists but include conservatives such as Cardinal Cushing, William Loeb, and former commissioner, Richard Russell."

And that's just for starters. More here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/wrone/Review_of_Case_Closed.html.

And as a published author on the case myself, who never did it for the money, I have to say only goodhearted people understand why someone like me would do this as a labor of love. Only evil-hearted people would assume it was all about money.

[TheGripester]

You're obviously very passionate about your point of view. But insulting mine will not validate yours, sorry, neither will representing me as an "evil-hearted person." You have no idea who I am, and surely one small cynical opinion is not enough to judge anyone's morality.

The huge mass of books written about JFK's assassination are mostly taking the viewpoint that there was a conspiracy. You can't deny that. There is a big amount of money in it, obviously, and of those books I've read, very few analyze the data objectively. Most hypotheses in those tomes are houses of cards, built with supposition upon supposition. There is no profit in admitting that there is more than one interpretation of your data - and yet there are so many interpretations of the same data that all contradict each other, yet are construed by their authors to point to a conspiracy. That's not science.