Dartmouth Study of Backyard Photo supposedly confirms authenticity

[David Josephs]

I think the problem here is that although it is unlikely that the at least 52 year old BYPs were the most undetectable composite contrivances ever foisted on the American people by their local, state, or federal law enforcement authorities, they have always stank like rotted fish because of the seemingly never ending controversies associated with them.

Tom,

If I take a photo of a photo composite with the Reflex, the negative and image will not show signs of a composite since it is itself a fully complete image without alterations... like the autopsy photos - they themselves are not faked but actual photos of faked results.

(Note: stating the world is round based on centuries old technology of sailing into the horizon and not falling off but coming back around to the starting point does not make the technology any less accurate. Shaneyfelt was no more right or wrong then than now other than the changes in technology. Back then it required experts to create a finished product that was virtually undetectable... )

David, I see you attempt the most difficult choices of strategy in your sincere efforts to make your points, and in reading a large minority of your presentations, I end up thinking you've made bad choices. Why not find ways to call into doubt without leaving yourself as wide open as you often do?

You're right, too...nothing to see here....guy from a department endowed with $22 million from a lawyer who was sent by the father of the now world's wealthiest man with the biggest monopoly in the world to create a corporate law department with 600 plus lawyers and who then comes back and becomes chair of a firm with proven ties to a criminal partisan extremist who plead out to ten plus years in prison....guy from that endowed department tells us his tests prove the rifle photos are most likely not fakes.... natural thing to do is what you are doing.... post that I am paranoid .....carry on!

Tom.. let me put this back to you...

Your quote that I requoted in italics is a case of incredulity yet proves nothing but that you can state your concerns and reservations about the background of someone yet not connect any of the dots.
You want us to believe the man's results are based on his personal agenda and connections

You basically say, "Trust me, see all these potentially nefarious connections - he MUST be doing something wrong"

Whereas I go about proving to those who study this case that examining the photos for alteration presupposes their authenticity. Before we worry about who did the examination and what the results are (or would always be given the connection YOU feel are important here) how about connecting the camera to the photos to the negatives?

If you can't do that, and we can't, then even my example of the nose shadow being wrong is after the fact. The dismissed Aerospace analysis provides proof that an alteration was done.
Case closed as we say. Why bother with anything else but authenticing the evidence?

The circumstantial evidence of the camera, Marina, Rose/Stoval/White, the reports, the negatives, 133-C and on and on is much more tangible than claiming the results are tainted due to an agenda you only touch upon and do not prove.

It has long been your approach Tom, that if you throw enough of the relationships against the wall, we MUST begin to accept that everything we are paranoid about is true - simply due to these relationships.
I'm not saying it's not possible and adds fuel to the fire... but a connection to THAT endowed department does not a guilty verdict make

PROVE that the connections you cite resulted in the activity - not that as a result of our paranoia we need to ACCEPT this as true, with no concrete evidence other than the relationships and backgrounds.

I don't doubt there were many threads of curruption and control running thru these relationships... but the relationship in itself is not a priori understanding of that connection

DJ