Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE?

[Albert Doyle]

I see a lip that runs unbroken across the hole with the missing tooth.



H&L attackers are desperate to the deny the evidence that keeps coming in against them.

[David Josephs]

My reply is only regarding the pic and its enlargement, sorry to piss in the H&L pool but this looks an even worse retouch job than the back of the head of our main man in the Z film.

Tne 'hole' even extends over the edge of his bottom lip.

Without a sharper version I reckon this to be a fake.

[/QUOTE]

Just to be sure, I did nothing to this image...

Whatever artifacts there are is the result of the journey this image has been on... Darks and lights tend to crush with reproduction, extending slightly over what was originally there...

As to the back of JFK's head - it was a bit more obvious. I will take another and closer look at the mouth area..
At the core though, there is a tooth missing - front right it appears.

[Bart Kamp]

I cannot identify that there is or any tooth missing, what I see is a botched up brush job that is becoming apparent when blown up, which is the same as with the Z film (nice sample btw). They never thought that the enhancements 40/50 years later would point out these deficiencies.

I am writing a piece on the Z film and The Blackening for later this year (my writings on PM come first).

Back then retouching was done with a brush and some ink (in the 80's I worked with it myself for CibaChromes and B&W bromide prints), on small photographs this is quite a tough job to do, you need a helluva steady hand and a good magnifying glass.

To me this blotch has the same characteristics as the back of our main man in Z and also reminds me when I was messing about with this stuff.

The so called original is very small no?

I find this photograph very suspicious, and would love to see a better copy of this as for now I would not subscribe to this photo showing any teeth missing at all.

[Dawn Meredith]

I see a lip that runs unbroken across the hole with the missing tooth.



H&L attackers are desperate to the deny the evidence that keeps coming in against them.

This is sheer desperation. Guess anyone can say that any photo is faked.

[Albert Doyle]

I think photo analysis would show no signs that the toothless photo was forged.


It's common sense that no CIA photo alteration labs were thinking they better forge missing teeth because Greg Parker is going to challenge H&L in the future. This is Fetzer nuttery.

[Bart Kamp]

What photo analysis would that be?

[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.


Now, who in the US government would have access to expert photographic manipulators?

Didn't Dino basically say that between Hawkeyeworks and NPIC there wasn't anything they couldn't do to a photo or film?

Seems I remember that the independent analysis of the images (from those not beholden to the US govt') at very high magnification found there to be a line across the chin...

Found it... Hilarious right? When examined at a greater depth and with advanced techniques the lines are there...
followed by excuses why we should not consider that evidence of creation... Good old HSCA...

::facepalm::


(HSCA 398)The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the
Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing
Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This
pocess confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See
g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) U[B]nder very carefully adjusted display
conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did
exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area[/B]. The lines appeared,
however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process,
where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the
image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the
picture was being subjected to the computations) .

[size=12](399)
[/SIZE][size=12]Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established,[/SIZE]
[size=12]there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an
attempt to fake the photograph . This is because similar, although less
pronounced, lines were found using the same digital enhancement technique
on a known authentic photographic negative. Therefore, those
lines may have been a product of the enhancement process
[/SIZE]

[Albert Doyle]

David, Bart is arguing that the toothless photo is forged. I don't know if you realize it but your post tends to back him.

[David Josephs]

David, Bart is arguing that the toothless photo is forged. I don't know if you realize it but your post tends to back him.

No Albert... what I am doing is addressing what you said

"I think photo analysis would show no signs that the toothless photo was forged."

There is no way an expert forgery with an internegative can be detected.

I could not say that the image is 100% real, even if we saw a negative since the internegative would be used to create the final image.

I do NOT believe this is an altered photo and that the extra darkness of that area is simply an artifact of its journey.

Better? ::coolrock::

[Albert Doyle]

I seriously doubt any intel forgers would have seen a need to alter any Oswald photos to create a missing tooth back in the 60's or 70's. That is too esoteric a need for that period and conforms to Harvey & Lee evidence that wouldn't come out for decades.