Dartmouth Professor finds that iconic Oswald photo was not faked Video

Dartmouth Computer Scientist Hany Farid has new evidence regarding a photograph of accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Read more at Dartmouth News: http://tinyurl.com/y9k33yf

Tell your friends:

ChrisJKop1: omni, please be respectful. I am a Dartmouth student and know that this professor spent a great deal of time to do a very scientific analysis. It is very difficult to explicate all this work into a 5 minute video, especially at a level that can be understood by the general public with minimum previous knowledge on the subject.

omnimodis78: @ChrisJKop1, I agree that youtube isn't the right forum for credible scientific debate, but I don't think I made any disrespectful comments. I don't think that a professor is any more competent at some things than a would-be amateur, as long as the investigation is objective. This professor, though, doesn't sound like he is objective and makes some very inaccurate statements. This devalues his research and discredits his presentation.

omnimodis78: @Bugstomper2 - The best way to demonstrate this would be to create and present a dynamic lighting pattern inside a fully recreated 3D environment. What he presents us is a static 2D recreation of the photograph which essentially simply clones the original image. Show us the angle of the light source, move that light source in the 3D environment, and show where the shadows fall then, and finally move the light source in its final position and let's see where the shadows end up.

fireemblem555: Not in the 1960s though

eraserfoot: Why wasnt a photographer hired way back then to determine if the photograph was faked? And who was it that made this claim? After reading about this, the thought immediately came to mind why not simply go back to the place the photo was taken and, with a similar proportioned model, just wait for the sun to cast the appropriate shadows... Whats the big deal? No computing power needed. How could something so obvious take 40 some odd years to be solved? Am I missing something?

eraserfoot: Never mind. This just in from Wikipedia: (1964)A panel of twenty-two photographic experts consulted by the HSCA examined the photographs and answered twenty-one points of contention raised by critics.[148] The panel concluded the photographs were genuine." No need to re-hash the issue. I guess the professor was just demonstrating what his computer can do.

waysworth: when I look at the Oswald / Model shadows in the computer, the nose and eye-socket shadows appear completely different. the model's socket shadows are not nearly as long, and the nose shadow is very much more triangular, suggesting (if the model was fairly accurate) that the light source was higher on the real face.

aalhazzred: Non sequitur - That shows the shadows are correct, nothing more. Does the Professor content it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do this in the 60s? Hardly, in fact, if you were going to fake a picture you would look for a picture of his head to match up the shadows at the same time of day. Words like exactly and perfectly and "impossible" betray a lack of objectivity there are enough variables here to drive a truck through Case still not closed. Keep trying though.

SharkBite55: JFK... Blown Away... By the CIA... Coup d'tat in the USA... Burn in hell Hoover Edgar J. High Treason in America.

burrdturgler: "you can't see but" "about right" "maybe a little bit of the scene around him" "more or less" "my favorite part" "everything is perfect" "100% perfect" ... "you've got to bring more rational reasoning to these types of things ..."

trylonperisphere: "We have to build 3D models" or we could just go outside on a sunny day and see if the shadows roughly match any random person.

Byfbowhiffen: Your not going to be 100% accurate... The nose just needed to be generally the correct size. The shadows are also not as perfect as he had said but it accurately depicts what was shown in the photograph. You also don't have to model an entire scene in order to get these sorts of results, just the most influential parts like lighting bouncing off a house or reflective object. What would be the point in modeling every twig and rock if they aren't going to yield any sort of significant result.

insanic1: yeah do the fake holocaust photos

SeexiBiene91: jem mit mir chattn hab auch bilder so langweilig zur zeit

pikmindoctor: Seems pretty convincing to me. I'm sure the police and government do terrible things, but probably more out of individuals neglect and indifference than actual plotting.

mongolishous: your mother

flowerpt: Nice, but I was actually expecting some of the statistical analysis as in prior work - curious if this photo was also analyzed using that technique.

fluxxus: Such as? Why did LHO's mom say she destroyed a similar photo?

theycallmefibb: Wow, you're all fucking geniuses, never before have I had the genuine pleasure of stumbling upon a YouTube page full of so many class act forensic scientists like yourselves. The guy in the video pales in comparison. Pat eachother on the back; you're all amazing contributions to the world.

fixingbraincell: uhmmm is this an apple ad?

Balthusdire2008: Yeah, thats what I kept wondering.

Jschlaaeter333: I think what the man was trying to say was regardless of technology, images and photographs cannot be faked even today... so be careful of what you wish for.