Dartmouth Study of Backyard Photo supposedly confirms authenticity

[Tom Bowden]

This article appeared today and states that Dartmouth confirms it is authentic..
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-backyard-ph...swald.html

[Jim DiEugenio]

This is at least two years old.

And its been superseded and shown to be defective in methodology by the new work of Jeff Carter and David Josephs.

[Magda Hassan]

I remember there was some thing like this several years ago from a UK university, might have been Dartmouth, but it didn't look that convincing. It is here on the forum. Might come up with a search for Dartmouth or researchers name. Probably in JFK board or maybe Photographs and Images.

[Magda Hassan]

Interesting. It is just the one guy at Dartmouth. Gets regular outings it seems.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...d-so-is-he

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...rvice-quot

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...-not-faked

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...yard-photo

[Tracy Riddle]

It is so freaking easy to lie with computer models, but people are so easily impressed with them.

[Ray Mitcham]

It is so freaking easy to lie with computer models, but people are so easily impressed with them.

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.


Farid has taken the original photo and worked on that instead of correcting the perspective.


This the photo he worked on. (Note the perspective of the posts at the rear of Oswald.)



This is the model he made from that photo.





Compare that to this corrected perspective photo.





Let us see Farid try his software on the lower photo.

[Tom Bowden]

He is wrong on this picture but some of our pseudo photographic experts on the site should study his other photographic techniques in analyzing photographs. Long time ago, I was involved with a study to reduce X-rays to microfilm and retain 14 steps of the gray scale. This was in the 1964=65 timeframe. I was fortunate to spend time at Columbia University in their studies.

[Ray Mitcham]

He is wrong on this picture but some of our pseudo photographic experts on the site should study his other photographic techniques in analyzing photographs. Long time ago, I was involved with a study to reduce X-rays to microfilm and retain 14 steps of the gray scale. This was in the 1964=65 timeframe. I was fortunate to spend time at Columbia University in their studies.

What's your point, Tom?

[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...

[Tom Scully]

David,

You're presenting opinions influenced by technology no newer than forty years old, back to at least fifty-two years old, in the example of the influences on Shaneyfelt's "expert" testimony and your citing of HSCA "treatment" of BYP authenticity.
Consider also that readers you have potential to influence may only agree that the issue of Marina snapping the BYP....
or not, is controversial. Why declare that she did not take the BYP? Why even risk turning those anticipated readers, (potential converts to your overall way of thinking) off?
I expect you would raise the issue of antique technological influences if your were taking the other side of the argument you are making, so why even put the time and effort you expended to post it?

I regard myself as a member of the choir you are preaching to, David, but I am tired of the double standard I so often see in the reading I do. I give everyone the same advice, keep it real or stay home. NIST was tasked with investigating the collapses of WTC 1,2, and 7. NIST early reports said they made the decision not to increase staffing to perform thorough and timely investigation. The least obvious WTC collapse was tower 7. NIST made no effort to obtain structural steel samples in the initial critical weeks of "clean up" and reflected in the NIST report, the difficulty of obtaining an adequate variety of steel samples to test. After many delays and more than six years, NIST made the unprecedented finding that WTC 7 collapsed from the heat effects on steel with undisturbed fire retardant coating, from "ordinary office fires" fueled by furnishings as fire spread from room to room as combustibles were consumed. NIST determined that fuel storage tanks housed in WTC7 played no part in fires leading to catastrophic collapse.

I could "Fetzerize" the 9/11 collapse controversy, David, but I always stick closely to the WTC 7 NIST investigation because I think it is uncontroversial and easily proven. It should not turn away any reader with an open mind. Structural engineers and architects, it was reported just after 9/11, were most interested in having a WTC 7 collapse determination.
All new high rise construction should have halted, at least in the U.S., until NIST issued its WTC 7 report, but new construction continued, anyway, during the six year wait for the NIST report.

Anticipating I risk making this post about me instead of about my observations above, consider that I posted this in reaction to Hani Farid I, and I did the work to back what I was saying, and I have not changed my opinion of why there was Hani Farid I and now, II.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....4&p=174586Tom Scully_* Posted 17 November 2009 -

.....Oh, it's possible this photographic "expert" is a non-partisan, earnest scientist with no particular agenda, but it we would be remiss if we did not note the background of the key sponsor of his chair and department......Two questions;

One: after reading the bio of the man who endowed the "chair" your boy Farid now occupies at Dartmouth, are we in agreement that it looks like he never really left Preston Gates, and that it's impossible to tell where Preston Gates ends and Microsoft begins, or vice-versa?

Two: If William Horlick "Bill" Neukom was described as a CIA recruit and then was shepherded by the DCI to a CIA affiliated entity and then he later became DCI himself, would you suspect he had been CIA through his whole career? ....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....4&p=174597Tom Scully_* Posted 17 November 2009 -

Craig,

Which head would you have put above the commie newspapers in the Oswald-holding-the-rifle photos?
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!

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?

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.

Now, please read the paragraph directly above, again. Is it not reasonable and extremely difficult to poke holes in? We believe in many of the same things, David. I urge you to find ways to choose paths of least resistance when you are composing your arguments.

Here is a choice of an impressively solid path of least resistance.:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/f...219-2.html
19 February, 2007
Digital imaging makes fakes easier to make, but maybe also easier to spot. News@nature.com talks to mathematician Hany Farid about tracking down falsified photos for science journals and the FBI.
Nicola Jones
What do you do for a living?

Look in the eyes: Hany Farid is "obsessed" with the spot of light reflected in a person's eye.Dartmouth College
I'm an applied mathematician, but I work in a computer science lab [at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire]. My primary research area is developing computational and mathematical techniques to detect tampering in digital media.
Most of my funding comes from law enforcement: I have a grant from the FBI. As well as doing research, I am often approached by people and organizations to help to authenticate digital media so I've become something of a digital detective. ....

.