Digital forensics shows Oswald photo was not faked
tags:
Stumble ThisDartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Farid, a pioneer in the field of digital forensics, digitally analyzed an iconic image of Oswald pictured in a backyard setting holding a rifle in one hand and Marxist newspapers in the other. Oswald and others claimed that the incriminating photo was a fake, noting the seemingly inconsistent lighting and shadows. After analyzing the photo with modern-day forensic tools, Farid says the photo almost certainly was not altered.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2009/11/05.html
they could just have a clay model head and a spotlight in a studio
i don't see how this is a new revalation
good fun nonetheless
Very interesting, but far from conclusive.
So you think the alterers of this were either magic...or way way WAY ahead of their time? It's pathetic that this conspiracy theory has wasted soo much time and money of people who obsess over it rather than figuring out something constructive to do. Something that might actually help people, rather than holding conferences on just which mob boss was involved with the CIA to assassinate Kennedy.
But that's irrelevant, really, and so is this whole faked photos and magic bullet bullshit. Distractions - there's a lot more evidence for a conspiracy in witness testimony, evidence already buried, confidential files not yet released, and the like.
People get so confused so easily about this stuff. He's just using a computer to do it. They could still do it yourself, if they didn't have computers.
But my comment is nothing to do with whether or not the conspiracy is true, i don't know/care, i wasn't even aware there was one regarding this photo, i'm not from your neck of the woods
*runs away from Apple fans*!
(for those who lack sarcasm detector, the above statement is sarcasm)
there's a lot more evidence for a conspiracy in witness testimony, evidence already buried, confidential files not yet released, and the like.
If you have any respect for people like James Randi, Michael Shermer, or anyone who uses scientific methods, then you already understand that witness testimony is possibly the most unreliable way of getting at any truth, and more often than not, completely opposite of the truth.
>> ^ponceleon:
Clearly he is part of the conspiracy!!!! zomg
See? it's true.
Shouldn't that prove his innocence? After all according to Winstonfield_Pennypacker and Quantumushroom all good Democrats are Marxists.
You can replicate that straight nose shadow while still standing to the left or right of the light source in front of the bathroom mirror if you like and have the time