Dartmouth Study of Backyard Photo supposedly confirms authenticity

[David Josephs]

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it was used directly to make the print. However, I cannot specifically eliminate the possibility of an internegative or the possibility of this photograph having been copied, a negative made by copying a photograph similar to this from which this print was....

I think this is highly unlikely, because if this were the result of a copied negative, there would normally be evidence that I could detect, such as a loss of detail and imperfections that show up due to this added process.
Although a very expertly done rephotographing and reprinting cannot positively be eliminated, I am reasonably sure it was made directly from the negative.

When Aerospace Corp did their analysis for the HSCA they found the fine lines at the chin but the HSCA dismissed it, "however" due to what appears them looking too closely and with too much technology.

::doh::

HSCA Vol 6: (398) The 133-B negative (CE 749)was digitally processed at the AerospaceCorp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute usingseveral different image-processing techniques. This process confirmed that thegrain distribution was uniform. (173) (See g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions,the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibitirregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared, however,only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique wasapplied at a much higher resolution.

The following illustrates a number of conflicts which render the conclusion these were 3 separate original photos with 3 separate original negatives

1) Rose took back the 2 negatives he claims to have turned in - HICKS does not say a word about this transaction in his testimony or any reports.
Rose's testimony does not mention Hicks... http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0030-001.gif does not mention negatives...







2) a third negative/photo is withheld from evidence until 1977. Even though a cutout and a photo is created in the same exact pose as this missing image.

Yet when we try and put the 3rd image back into the photo, we find it not possible.. it does not work... which in turn suggests a composite image as shaney felt mentions above.










3) With shadows falling in the exact same line on the ground - these two images shows that BS related to the nose shadow being possible from that position - it's not.

The shadow on his nose being straight down is a conflict in physics. Doesn't work that way.

Whether or not that pose is possible is not the point - the rest of the photo does not fit... the evidence authenticating these images and negatives does not accomplish its task.

Analyzing the finished product is akin to arguing Oswald's shooting expertise - he wasn't at the wondow firing a rifle... how well he shoots is not an issue.











Marina did NOT take the images when she cannot even remember HOW the photos are taken - when this was one of the only time in her life she took photos.

Would YOU forget looking at this while holding it in the middle of your chest? She did, repeatedly. Trying to prove authenticity when "Dartmouth" doesn't know how many steps were done prior to the creation of this image is folly at best and junk science designed to misdirect at worst...