Dartmouth Professor Finds That Iconic Oswald Photo Was Not Faked

[@Alexaklr]

So, after 50 years and hundreds, maybe thousands, of people examining the infamous backyard photos, this guy waltzes in with a less than 5-minute video and tells us the photos weren't faked, and he does so using additional pictures that he flashes through so fast we can't get a good look. Why not let the camera stay on the Oswald face and the 3D face a bit longer? Why obstruct the photos with his hand? So, now we are to believe the old photos weren't doctored because he has doctored new ones???

[@davidsmith5704]

@HZHarts. You ever heard of hitting the pause button dumb-ass.

[@brittanybonnie1478]

facts...the pics fake

[@johnrogan9420]

Mossad agent

[@CONEHEADDK]

@@davidsmith5704 What is a pause button dumb-ass.? And - now I'm here - you ever heard of question marks.?

[@ebeegeebeefofeebee3181]

?

[@rareword]

Misdirection. This video misses the point: the problem with this photograph is not the shadows but the missing finger tips on the hand which holds the newspaper.

[@lola4jvb4lho]

The prof (his lab long funded by CIA) only used ONE photo and ONE head,and didn't check to see that the OTHER heads on the other photos ALL MATCH--an impossibility. Sure, the photos were faked, as anybody who knows anything about photography knows. Yes, the chopped fingers are a joke. Also, guy is wearing a watch. LHO owned a pocket watch and only wore an ID bracelet. The elbow is also chopped off in one photo. Ground shadows move way too far between photos to have been taken only minutes apart.

[@michael-4k4000]

He's a CIA construct....

[@timberrr1126]

Wrong. Heads on other retakes should be the same. You are double talking the viewers and confusing them.

[@lola4jvb4lho]

He used ONE photo, and it happens to be the suspicious George DeMohrenschildt COPY --never made of pixels, either. Farid fails to say the HEAD in all the backyard photos is precisely the SAME,with just a tilt or some retouching done--the heads, reduced to the same size, all fit identically --eyes,nose, etc. meaning Oswald supposedly NEVER MOVED HIS HEAD TO EITHER SIDE EVEN A SINGLE DEGREE IN ANY PHOTO. IMPOSSIBLE. You can't shoot several photos in a row with no deviation of head plane. Faked!

[@ERRATICCHEESE2]

Wow, this professor proves that the photographs weren't doctored by COMPLETELY IGNORING all the points which doubters use to prove that the photgraphs were. Why is he focusing on shadows instead of the arm position, wrong chin, head paste marks, and 2 other dubious photographs? WTF is the point of this video. It literally misses the point of the whole debate.

[@timberrr1126]

Shadows is the important thing

[@phantomstrangermedia]

Oswald did not have a deep scar between bottom lip & chin - yet a consistent line is at that point in both photos. Oswald’s chin was somewhat clefted & narrowing towards its lower point…the chin on the subject of both photos is unlike Oswald’s chin. Thus ‘scar’ line & non-matching chin should lead us to at least ask if Oswald’s face (above the cut off line below his lips) was placed on to the chin & neck of someone else. Doing that would actually preserve most of the shadow patterns which this ‘expert’ finds so convincing of the photo’s ‘authenticity’.

[@timberrr1126]

@@phantomstrangermedia Wrong. Oswald’s chin shape is only detected if there are shadows. Flat lighting means he has a flat chin. So, you have to see it under different lighting modes. His jaw is wide, but his chin is pointed. So, light can make it look wide or narrow.

[@timberrr1126]

@@phantomstrangermedia Wrong. The “deep scar” is just the fold of his chin.

[@phantomstrangermedia]

@@timberrr1126 No, look again. There is a ruler straight line on both photos between lower lip & chin. Natural forms don’t have ultra straight lines. The chin in both photos is not the same as that of Oswald.

[@SJ-oi7tk]

The computer image (3:15) on the right has a shadow on the right side of the face; whereas, the photo of "Oswald" does not.

[@gutenbird]

It’s probably just a fill light. The 3D model probably didn’t count for either the light reflecting from the paper or from the wall.

[@NickCager]

I guess he needs to now model his cheeks and prove the side shadow... you know, light does reflect off the surfaces in and around the yard right?

[@timberrr1126]

The model has a shadow on the right side because the light source is smaller than the Sun, and closer than the Sun. Furthermore, because it is closer than the Sun, the drop off light is “quicker” than a Sun lit photo. The light is likely 5’ away. The walls cannot provide fill because the main light is so close to the head. The difference is that one is taken with close up lights, the Oswald pic is with Sunlight. I am a pro photographer.

[@AmericanActionReport]

Oswald was cultivating a communist persona during that period. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee, supposedly as a counterpoint to former FBI agent Guy Banister's Free Cuba Committee, was part of that persona. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee was located in Guy Banister's office. As to whether the photo in question was faked, it comes down to whether Oswald had posed for the photo to promote his communist persona or whether the FBI (or CIA or other Deep State operatives) did it after the fact. While it's important, it's not crucial.

[@charlesrobbins2208]

Upon reflection, this is great news. Why is this great news? Because proving that the photos are real is proof that the rifle in the photo is not the rifle Oswald bought. This rifle has the sling attachments on the bottom of the rifle in this photo, whereas the rifle in the archives has them mounted on the side of the rifle. It is not possible that this is the rifle used to kill Kennedy. Case Open. It's wonderful how there are so many items which, when examined, show that Oswald had indeed been set up.

[@charlesrobbins2208]

@Std Disclaimer You just go on repeating your mantra of avoidance. "physically consistent" is not saying that it IS the same rifle. It is just a sideways means of trying to insert unproven evidence into the record. The sling is not the issue here, as you well know. The sling mounts are the issue. They are in different places on the two rifles. Try to fix that issue and leave every other attempt at misdirection out of the subject. Explain how the rifle in the archives has sling mounts on it's side and the rifle in the backyard photos shows, quite clearly, bottom mounted sling mounts. One point of contention, location of the sling mounts on the two obviously differently configured rifles. What ballistic evidence? The evidence of one bullet fragmenting into minute pieces after hitting a very weak skull bone and the other bullet causing 7 wounds of the skin of the two men, smashing one rib of Gov. Connally and then causing a fracture of Gov. Connally's radius, one of the hardest and most dense bones in the human body,? A bullet that was then found to be in nearly perfect condition; with less lead missing from the bullet than the lead which was recovered from the Gov.'s wrist and chest? A bullet which was found on a stretcher one floor above the Governor and the President? A bullet which if tested for DNA would provide none because the bullet did not come from either of the two men hit by bullets that day in Dealey Plaza. Look at the images of ce399 and you see a very clean bullet with no gore upon it. Look at the x-rays of JFK's skull and you see hundreds of tiny fragments within the skull. Is this not problematic for the commission? How does one bullet remain in such perfect condition while the other bullet, supposedly coming from the same box of ammunition, fragment into hundreds of tiny pieces of lead? No one can prove Lee Oswald was in that sniper's nest that day. The one man who is said to have identified Oswald was not wearing his glasses that day and that made it impossible for him to see anybody's facial features at the time of the shooting. The evidence in this case was cherry picked. The commission chose to ignore any testimony or statements which would have caused any doubt of the conclusion made by the commission. Hoover had stated within 24 hours of the assassination that Oswald alone was responsible for the killing of JFK. How is that even accepted as a possibility? Today it would have taken months to interrogate all of the people that Lee Oswald knew or had been in contact with in the months or year before the assassination. So how is it that Hoover was so sure of his claim? It is simple, that was what was decided would be the result 10 months later when the report was provided to the American public. This is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence which disproves the conclusion of the commission. Thank you for your informative response.

[@markrymanowski719]

​@stddisclaimer8020 The backyard photo's are just one piece of evidence to prove Oswald's innocence. There are many.

[@rickyrick1966]

Anyone with no photographic experience at all can look at this picture truthfully and tell it's not real ........ Lee Oswald himself said the picture was fake ........

[@xanhteps648]

His head doesn't look gigantic on his body to you? How exactly did he get two pictures taken with the same size and lighting but different backgrounds? Next the kodachrome from the moon landing??

[@swankybutters8371]

The backyard photo was most likely Roscoe White with Oswald's face over his... If you look him up you will see he matches the chin and well, the mark on his arm that Oswald did not have. It's also a good chance he was the knoll shooter.

[@swankybutters8371]

Look up the 3 hobos and Roscoe White, they look a whole lot alike.

[@johnnieireland2057]

I always felt his head looked disproportionate to his body in this photo

[@donhadley3734]

Exactly Xan!! His head is totally out of proportion!!

[@senjuubigold9116]

It's amazing that this guy has any credibility at all. Someone saw this and wanted to push it out as evidence? Seriously?

[@dme1016]

You conspiracy nuts lack the capability of understanding obvioua fsct. Y'all see boogeyman everywhere.

[@oshkoshb-josh5389]

It is easy to see that it is not his chin at all when compared with other pictures of him. Also there is a bulge in the line running vertically next to him on his left!

[@mikeivey7167]

@@dme1016 Yeah and you WC Nutters are just plain silly! Bwwwwaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

[@joetotale6354]

@@dme1016 Tell me the 'obvioua fsct' then?

[@johndeagle4389]

Marina Oswald admitted that she took the photo.

[@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.

[@RealParadoxed]

That's probably because the guy thought the sun was lower which, if you look at the image it's higher

[@Bravo_116Cinema]

Thanks professor you proved to me this picture is still fake and it has always been fake.

[@leemoore9933]

His wife said she took the photo, she wouldn't have been part of anything she was scared of america. Try accepting the facts you might feel better and lose weight and stop the hair loss.

[@catspaw3815]

@@leemoore9933 she was so afraid of america that she wouldn't take a picture of her husband if he asked her to?

[@leemoore9933]

@@catspaw3815 She did that's fact.

[@timberrr1126]

I am a pro photographer. The photo is not changed or airbrushed. The Oswald nose shadow is shown straight down. This is because his head is TILTED to the right. If his head were vertical, the nose shadow would be angled. Said another way, the nose shadow is angled like his leg shadow, but his head is angled/tilted and this makes the shadow look like it goes straight down. It is a kind of logical deception. Also please notice that Oswald's chin can look wider depending upon where the light is sourced. To see a broad chin on Oswald, look at the cover photo of the KZbin from CNN called "Lee Harvey Oswald speaks to the press" Simple photograph him with light that creates NO SHADOW ON HIS CHIN. The photo was taken by Marina his wife, so she said on a video interview. Oswald's chin will look pointed if there is a shadow ON THE SIDE of the pointed chin. If there no shadow, it looks wide. End of mystery.

[@thirdlantern]

@@timberrr1126 What do you stand to gain by lying to real Americans?

[@jamesfeldman4234]

Hany Farid fails to mention the most incriminating fact of all in his analysis. That is understandable, however, because the omitted fact incriminates Farid, not Oswald. The critical fact that Farid omits is that his study was funded by the FBI, which was involved from the beginning in attempting to frame Oswald, even before any investigation whatsoever was conducted. So, Farid is not an independent researcher, but rather is a paid disinformation specialist who was financed by an organization dedicated to framing Oswald, not in revealing the facts and evidence.

[@terryballiew8587]

James Feldman was

[@billmurray4063]

Please show your evidence that the FBI funded the Hany Farid research; real evidence please not a conspiracy theory. Thank you.

[@johngmfootballphilosopher6852]

This video should only be 20 seconds long. This guy likes to hear himself talk.

[@dennissmith5807]

Marina Oswald took the photo. What part of it's real do you people not understand?

[@gregoryklein3311]

Dennis Smith , the part where she later said she was coerced to say the photo was real.

[@scottcarroll9201]

@@gregoryklein3311 I'm afraid I'm going to need a link for that claim. Not that I don't trust you but...I don't trust you.

[@stevedolesch9241]

Folks, here's what I see: if someone can help I appreciate it. I put both photos side by side, the rifle one and the mugshot. I enlarged both. What I see in the rifle one a small dent mon the right side of his head. Then, I looked at the mugshot. A larger hit "wound" when he got arrested. I wish there was a way of inserting photos here. As for the photo(s) of Oswald holding a rifle and a 'document', because there are two, being original or doctored, I see fake. It's the way he stands and holds both objects. Dartmouth doesn't get into the forensic details at all. Okay, he states forensic but does not detail what I could call forensic proof of fakery.or originality of the photo. Peace.

[@Firearcher4]

@@timberrr1126 Loser

[@terryblankenshipmusic1322]

Sorry professor, not buying your explanations, especially after hearing Marina say , she did take pics in the back yard , but when shown those photos later , she claimed she didn’t take those pics , that Lee was in a different position in the yard in the photos she took ?

[@josephstabile9154]

Right on!

[@jaysonvalentine]

If Farid was honest, he might have a point. However, it bugs me that he does not show the computations made to create his 3D models. He could have easily programmed the shadows to match. Also, he is very minimalist in terms of analyzing the background by obmitting the majority of the photo's information.

[@dougjstl1]

the face is exactly the same size looking in the exactly same direction. In 2 different pictures

[@aethanfriday3568]

Mic dropped. Done, it's over conspiracy wins.

[@aethanfriday3568]

Done, it's over, mic drops, truth wins. Conspiracy is real.

[@musicmann6812]

So what ? How does that prove there was only one shooter ?

[@Rohilla313]

rudlof Hëss It doesn’t and that wasn’t the intent. It does prove however that the backyard photo wasn’t faked as conspiracy theorists claim.

[@xanhteps648]

@@Rohilla313 I take objection to the over simplification of your fellow humans by labeling folks conspiracy theorists. Truth seekers is the new pc term.

[@anonymoushuman8344]

Creating composite photos in which the shadows on the face are formally consistent with the rest of the shadows in the picture at that time would not have required some great technical leap. The two sets of photos could simply be taken at the same location, time of day, and time of year on two sunny days. The elements to be composited would have to come from pictures taken under basically the same lighting conditions--i.e., the same angle of lighting from the sun or other light source, comparable brightness, reflection sources, etc. (Assuming no retouching.) The model does seem to show that the shadow under the nose is not an indication of fakery. That is all. If the photos are authentic, we still need to ask why Oswald posed for them and whether he did so on his own initiative. For what purpose were the photos taken, and for what purpose did he believe they were being taken?

[@timberrr1126]

I am a pro photographer. The photo is not changed or airbrushed. The Oswald nose shadow is shown straight down. This is because his head is TILTED to the right. If his head were vertical, the nose shadow would be angled. Said another way, the nose shadow is angled like his leg shadow, but his head is angled/tilted and this makes the shadow look like it goes straight down. It is a kind of logical deception. Also please notice that Oswald's chin can look wider depending upon where the light is sourced. To see a broad chin on Oswald, look at the cover photo of the KZbin from CNN called "Lee Harvey Oswald speaks to the press" Simple photograph him with light that creates NO SHADOW ON HIS CHIN. The photo was taken by Marina his wife, so she said on a video interview. Oswald's chin will look pointed if there is a shadow ON THE SIDE of the pointed chin. If there no shadow, it looks wide. End of mystery.

[@emmasanders6226]

@@timberrr1126 Youre opinion as well as the professors means very little when youre not analyzing the original. Artefacts among other things cannot be ruled out otherwise. Especially in non digital photos. Most photos being analyzed are copies of copies from newspapers or magazines of the day. Photos in the archives are not original either

[@timberrr1126]

@@emmasanders6226 Shadows are broad areas, not minute details. Therefore a magazine photo is sufficient to show shadows.

[@emmasanders6226]

@@timberrr1126 Shadows also can be made by the process of printing itself. Unless one had the original there is no way of knowing.

[@timberrr1126]

@@emmasanders6226 If you have ever tried to make fake shadows using 1960s photo tech, you would not be endorsing any methods. Shadows are not merely dark spots. They have inner reflections that make them look 3D. And every shadow has different reflections than all other shadows. The Oswald photo was taken by Marina. Oswald was documenting himself as an FBI operative. The photo has nothing to do with JFK. Even the rifle has not been positively linked to JFK. JFK was buried with the bullet that traveled from his back to his leg or near his hip. Bullets to his head were gutted clean. Connolly was buried with his leg bullet. Source; Orlando Sentinel, July 18, 1993 Only the Magic Bullet could be linked to the rifle. And this was a bullet fired into a bale of cotton or water. So the FBI had to create the Magic Bullet sometime before the JFK shooting. Then it was placed on the stretcher. The Magic bullet was planted evidence. It is equal to the passport found on the ground at the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris; or the passport found of the pilot of the 9/11 plane. Or the passport of another shoot out. I read that Israeli secret police like to plant passports.

[@paulf4626]

Why use a computer generated image to 'prove' that the photo is real? Surely its best to get somebody the same height as oswald to stand out in the sun and wait until the same size shadow is cast, this would make a perfect scenario for judging the shadow casting.

[@insertnamehere313]

@@mogadon7 off camera isn't proof its hearsay in court.

[@TheCleaner76]

They did recreate the photo at the same time of day.....and guess what the shadows matched up. Move on people

[@noway905]

@@TheCleaner76 whatever you say tidy bowl man.

[@TheCleaner76]

@@noway905 it's called research 🙄

[@alekhidell7068]

The Cleaner, although I do not dismiss the possibility that the backyard photos are legitimate, it is worth noting that the recreations were not exactly a perfect match. Oswald’s shadow is at the 10 o’clock position, whereas the recreation shows an 11 o’clock position. The closer the light source is to the horizon, the more the subject will have to tilt his head in order to produce the symmetrical shadow under his nose. For this reason, it is essential that the shadows line up as perfectly as possible. What’s more, shadows are inconsistent between the two subjects; posture is also slightly different, especially the degree of lean (partially responsible for the differences in shadows). The latter doesn’t significantly affect the comparison, but it’s nonetheless worth mentioning. It’s worth noting that Oswald shows more exposure on his arm, hands and face, whereas the recreation shows them in shadow - in part attributable to placement. It’s also worth noting the distinct differences between the fingertips on the hands holding the papers: no fingertips on Oswald, whereas the subject in the recreation has defined fingertips. I point these out not to nitpick, but because the details matter. As far as this analysis goes, I am not convinced that the backyard photos are genuine or forgeries. There is compelling (but not sufficient) evidence that they are legitimate, but there are also enough inconsistencies, oddities and circumstantial evidence to call them into question. It’s also worth noting that convincing forgeries were not outside the limits of 1963 photographic technology. Personally I am far less concerned with the backyard photos than I am with the lack of hard evidence definitively connecting Oswald with CE139. Neither the FBI nor the Warren Commission explained why Oswald ordered a 36" rifle, which Klein's had in stock, but received a 40" rifle, which Klein's did not have in stock. They never explained why the rifle was sold without a sling, yet the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD had a long leather sling. They never explained how Lee Harvey Oswald was able to pick up a package from the post office that was addressed to "A. Hidell." According to postal regulations a letter or parcel addressed to anyone other than the box holder would be stamped "addressee unknown" and "returned to sender." They never explained why or how Oswald was able to pick up a package that contained a firearm from the post office without filling out postal form 2162, required to be filled out by both the shipper and the receiver of a firearm. They never asked Klein's nor the post office for a copy of this form, which was required to be kept by the post office for 4 years. They never explained where or how Oswald acquired an ammunition clip or ammunition for the rifle. The FBI never explained what happened to the Klein's microfilm. The FBI never explained what happened to the original records they confiscated from Crescent, Harborside, Rupp, and Lifschutz. The FBI never explained what happened to the rifle (C2766) sold by Crescent to Klein's on June 18, 1962. This rifle (C2766), shipped to an individual whose name was known only to the FBI, could have been the rifle found by the Dallas Police on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is a serious shortage of hard evidence connecting Oswald to the alleged murder weapon. The supposed "evidence" consisted of nothing more than paper copies and photographs of altered and fabricated records. The Commission's willingness to accept COPIES AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF DOCUMENTS, instead of insisting on original documents, shows their collusion with the FBI in a deliberate attempt to try and prove that Oswald purchased C2766 from Klein's. The deliberate mishandling and misinterpreting of these fabricated documents was obvious when WC Attorney David Belin questioned Klein's Vice President William Waldman. Belin, again and again, blatantly misled and limited his questioning of Waldman in order to show that C2766 was sold to Oswald/Hidell. Then there's the question of the money order. According to the Warren Commission Lee Harvey Oswald left his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall during the morning of March 12, walked 11 blocks to the downtown post office, purchased a postal money order, and then mailed his order for the rifle to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago before returning to work. But the letter was postmarked 10:30 am, and company time records show that Oswald never left his job. He worked continuously from 8:00 am through 12:15 pm on 9 different printing jobs. The Warren Commission never pointed out that the envelope, time-stamped 10:30 am, was not mailed from the downtown post office where the money order was purchased. It was stamped and mailed in "zone 12," which was several miles west of the downtown post office and across the Trinity River. In order for this letter to have reached Chicago the following day, it would have to have been picked up by a mail carrier sometime after 10:30 am, delivered to the Industrial Station post office in zone 7, and then sorted and bagged into an airmail pouch. And the airmail pouch would have to have been delivered by another mail carrier to Love Field and then placed aboard an aircraft prior to it's 12 o'clock noon departure. If we are to believe the Warren Commission, then we believe that Oswald skipped work for an undetermined period of time on the morning of March 12, walked 11 blocks to the post office, purchased a postal money order, traveled several miles across the Trinity River in order to mail the letter, and then returned to his job unnoticed. And then, if we believe the Warren Commission, this letter was picked up by a mail carrier sometime after 10:30 am in zone 12, delivered to the post office in zone 7, sorted and placed into an airmail pouch, transported to the Love Field Airport, and loaded aboard the last flight to Chicago before the plane departed at noon. This money order was allegedly received by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago the following morning, was included with over a thousand other mail orders from around the country, and then deposited into Klein's bank account. If this sounds a little farfetched, believe me, it gets better. All US Postal Money orders have unique serial numbers. In the fall of 1962, Oswald purchased numerous money orders from the same downtown post office and mailed them to Washington, DC, in order to repay a loan from the government for his travel expenses incurred when he returned to the USA from Russia. These money orders were purchased in numerical sequence beginning in November, 1962. These serial numbers show that some 1200 money orders per week were purchased at the downtown post office in Dallas. At this rate we see that Oswald's alleged purchase of a money order on March 12, 1963, should have been numbered 2,202,011,935. But the serial number of the money order published in the Warren Volumes was more than 118,000 numbers higher. At the rate of 1200 money order per week, this money order should have been purchased in late 1964 or early 1965. In other words, this money order could easily have been pulled from a stack of fresh, unsold money orders by a postal official in Dallas, sometime after the assassination, and then given to the FBI. A close look at the details surrounding the "finding" of the money order the day after the assassination strongly suggests that this is what happened.

[@andrewcharley1893]

Stop the waffling professor!!!!!! Just go back to the sight and stand someone there with the sun at the exact point with shadow under the suspects nose and see where the shadow on the ground appears. Also why does Oswald in this photo have a square chin whereas in custody his chin is rounded?

[@thearkworldlife8338]

Roscoe White's chin on Oswald's face :-)

[@timberrr1126]

@@andrewcharley1893 You can’t use “another day”. It was a slight hazy day on the original picture. This is shown in the soft edge shadows. Another day would not be exactly the same.

[@davidpallin772]

How a President can be murdered in broad daylight in a known hostile city, with the deck stacked against him I might add, with so many suspicious aspects of It unresolved to this day is just mind boggling. How LHO was murdered while in the physical custody of Dallas Police speaks volumes. How every Trauma Room doctor and nurses at Parkland Hospital saw with their own eyes, a tiny wound of entrance in the President’s throat, and a fist sized exit wound in the occipital (back of head) area. Christ this whole thing just thing, every aspect of President Kennedy’s murder from Dallas to Bethesda Naval Hospital just screams a Conspiracy. The US Government never did a no holds barred honest investigation because this plot had to have been a Government power play. Poor LHO knew from the get go after 12:30 pm. November 22, 1963, he was played. History buried LHO as a psycho, which is 100% false. Now nearly 60 years later, will the country ever really know what happened? I feel that the country will never really know.

[@clc-gl4jn]

True. LHO did not murder my hero JFK. But he did know who was in on it and that was why he was a self proclaimed "patsy"

[@Caeruleo]

"How every Trauma Room doctor and nurses at Parkland Hospital saw with their own eyes, a tiny wound of entrance in the President’s throat" You are making a glaring omission. Quite obviously the main reason the Parkland doctors thought the throat wound was an entry was because they didn't know about the other bullet hole in his back, and even after they learned about it later from the news, that was after they had already lost the opportunity of examining both bullet holes closely. You have no possible way of knowing whether or not they would have continued to call the throat wound an entrance had they spent an equal amount of time closely examining both bullet holes. "and a fist sized exit wound in the occipital (back of head) area." Another glaring omission. You didn't bother to mention that at Parkland they never peeled back his hair and scalp to view anywhere even remotely close to 100 percent of the damage to his skull, nor did they take any x-rays at Parkland, so they would have had no possible way of knowing for certain that that was an exit. No one saw 100 percent of the damage to his skull for the first time ever until Bethesda, where they both peeled back his hair and scalp to reveal the total damage to the skull and also took x-rays. I continue to find it interesting that so many people think the Parkland observations "outweigh" the Bethesda observations when at Parkland they didn't do even remotely as much examination of the damage to his skull as they did at Bethesda. It's outlandish, really, that people claim that the doctors who saw only a small portion of the damage to his skull would know better than the ones who saw 100 percent of the damage to his skull.

[@zeroceiling]

@@Caeruleo …there is one inescapable oddity though. The first bullet hitting JFK acted exactly like a full metal jacket. It pierced his body cleanly, and left a relatively clean exit wound. Actually the bullet continued to act like an FMJ..even as it entered and then exited Connolly. The bullet that hit JFK’s cranium on the other hand acted pretty much exactly like a hollow-point bullet might. Instead of going cleanly through as a fully metal jacket would, the second bullet caused more deformity / partial destruction of the cranium…which a bullet fired by a Manlicher Carcano would not, as numerous subsequent tests have shown. At around 1900 ft / sec the bullet should have gone right through even though the Carcano was not considered an ultra-high velocity…the velocity was certainly high enough. The question is this: if a hollow-point was fired at JFK as the first shot, it would have still entered JFK’s back leaving a small entrance wound, but it most certainly would have absolutely blown out his throat area as the hollow front of the bullet would have carried a mass of tissue toward that exit. Instead it left a neat little nick in his throat and his tie, before entering Connolly. By contrast, JFK’s cranium was not only crushed in the exit area, but the inside of his skull was sprayed with a shower of lead particles, that would have come from the nose of the hollow point as it exploded in his skull. By contrast, the “pristine bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland had very little lead missing..even after going through two bodies. Bottom line is that the Carcano rifle could not fire two types of ammunition…so how did it seem to do so?..or is it more likely that a second shooter was possibly involved?

[@TheBsmit233]

People always use the Warren Commission and other documents to rule out a conspiracy. As we all know those documents could be fake or altered. The people involved had power over the investigation and documents. You are right about the photo but it is irrelevant. Who was Oswald really?

[@TheBsmit233]

@@Caeruleo You proably believe the original documents to be 100% real. How do you know they wasn't falsified or revised ? Oswald died so we will never know for sure. But it is impossible to rule out any conspiracy.

[@D800Lover]

Oswald to Captain Fritz: "In time I will be able to show you that this is not my picture, but I don't want to answer any more questions. . . . I will not discuss this photograph without advice of an attorney. . . . There was another rifle in the building. I have seen it. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son. . . . That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. I understand photography real well, and that, in time, I will be able to show you that is not my picture and that it has been made by someone else. . . . It was entirely possible that the Police Dept. has superimposed this part of the photograph over the body of someone else. . . . The Dallas Police were the culprits. . . . The small picture was reduced from the larger one, made by some persons unknown to me. . . . Since I have been photographed at City Hall, with people taking my picture while being transferred from the office to the jail door, someone has been able to get a picture of my face, and with that, they have made this picture. . . . I never kept a rifle at Mrs. Paine's garage at Irving, Tex. . . . We had no visitors at our apartment on North Beckley. . . . I have no receipts for purchase of any gun, and I have never ordered any guns. I do not own a rifle, never possessed a rifle. . ." I think it only fair we should consider Oswald's own words, since few have bothered.

[@lindagiovannazambanini6218]

D800Lover Yep, he knew exactly what they were doing to him. All part of the patsification process - so the real assassins and conspirators didn't hang for assassinating the president and a coup d'etat like Lincoln's assassins did! They had everything resting on making LHO the patsy - their (worthless, warmonger) lives! They would stop at nothing to kill JFK and frame Oswald - and they had limitless power at their disposal to do so! Lee Oswald was innocent. He was "prayerman" on the landing of the TSBD steps - just as he told Fritz he was during the interrogation: "out front with Bill Shelly". And also as he told Inspector Holmes during one interrogation session, that he heard the "commotion" out front - the roar of the crowd for the approaching motorcade? (witnesses have reported the roar could be heard as the motorcade came down Main and neared Houston) - and ran up front "to the vestibule" (described by Holmes in his notes, as the space between the 2 sets of glass doors that led to the TSBD steps). PM/LHO was actually was in the west corner of the landing and can be seen holding a unique stance the entire time - which is why the name "Prayer Man" was coined for him. He is seen in both Wiegman and Darnell films holding people have long guessed might be an apple or a pop bottle reflecting the light - but which i've now proven to be a TLR camera (Twin Lens Reflex style camera - like Vivian Maier used - a very common type of camera in '63) - specifically his Imperial Reflex 620, which is a cheap TLR allegedly used to take the back yard photos. It mysteriously "disappeared" from the Paine house after the assassination, then miraculously was "found" at the Paine house by Robt. Oswald (as so much evidence was similarly miraculously "found" there days, weeks and months after the assassination!) and returned months later by R.O. to the FBI (i think it was in Feb '64, if i remember correctly). A tortuous route! And up till now no reasonable explanation for its mysterious and convoluted disappearance and reappearance- now we know why! Prayer Man (Oswald) is not holding an apple or a pop bottle - he's holding a TLR camera his IR 620. TLR's uniquely reflect the light from its top "reflex lens" which has a mirror behind it at a 45 degree angle. The angle of the mirror sends the light and the "view" up to the viewfinder on top of the camera. But, I found, it also uniquely - unlike any other style of camera - reflects light back out the reflex lens toward the viewer! Thus creating the persistant "reflection" we see between PM's hands. And his stances used are classic TLR stances - ala Vivian Maier! In fact, it was my research on her life and work that set off he lightbulb that this is what PM was doing. But then I found the rationale for the persistant "light" we see between his hands.: Proof That Prayer Man is Oswald & Is Holding His Imperial Reflex 620 Camera www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13218499 Also, please be sure to read, share and follow the Prayer Man thread at the Education Forum so you understand the entire story PM and how proof was brilliantly and methodically developed to sustantiate that he is LHO . For those who may poo-poo this without reading the thread - you'd be wrong - his identity is NOT - repeat NOT - based solely upon his looks but upon lots of other evidence - statements, affidavits and testimonies, changes in statements, testimony etc.., the earliest news accounts stating LHO was seen in the first floor lobby and/or storage closet immediately as Truly and Baker charged into the lobby; and an "elimination list" eliminating all employees from being PM - except for one. Oswald. This is the most important and exciting new avenue in the history of JFK assassination research in my lifetime, others agree with that - and i've been studying the assassination for 40 years. Jim DiEugenio is a big fan of PM research - and he is one of the very best researchers out there. This thread at the EDF is now up to 147 pages long! The brilliant and relentless work of Sean Murphy was what broke this open. My research was ignited by studying his paradigm-shifting new line of research on the EDF. If you consider yourself to be a serious JFK researcher you can't spend your time any more productively than to educate yourself about PM! And you will never be more fascinated. Oswald Leaving the TSBD? educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=8dd700d4728aef98c5351556d939058a&showtopic=20354&page=1

[@RonaldReaganRocks1]

His wife Marina told of how Lee owned a riflfe, practiced with it, and how SHE took the pictures of him holding the rifle along with the left wing newspapers. MARINA TOOK THESE PICTURES. She also says that that was the rifle that Lee TOLD her he used to shoot at Edwin Walker. To the police, he denied owning the rifle, and denied bringing it into work. However, a friend of his who defends Lee said that Lee brought a long package that he said were window curtains to work. Lee denied bringing ANY package to work, and only a lunch in a small bag. No window curtains were found at the depository, and the ownership of the rifle was traced definitively back to Lee. He used a fake name on the mail order form (Alek Hidell) to buy it. It was sent to a Post Office box registered under Oswald's real name. Hidell was the name he called himseld in the USSR.

[@shanet5604]

RonaldReaganRocks1 Saved me typing,thank you ! Can’t believe some of these idiots that scream conspiracy ! Oswald acted alone !!

[@misterfriggingarrison6372]

This articulate surmisal draws the same conclusion as me.

[@misterfriggingarrison6372]

@King Anthony Correct! And what's more is his son, little Georgie, entered into the same Mephistophelian contract and adroitly dispatched Jonjon, in order to secure the EXACT same deal for himself, some 33 years later.

[@lifesavid]

I believe that the rifle in this photo and the rifle held up by Dallas police in news footage on the day were different rifles due to position of strap attachments.

[@michaelbarlow6610]

The obvious flaw to this Dartmouth College professor's claim that the infamous Oswald "backyard" photos are not fake is that he totally avoids mentioning that (1) according to photo experts, if repeated copies are made of an original photo (i.e., a copy of the original photo and then a copy of the copy, etc.) the result is that if an original photo has been altered, a crop line appears in the copies of the original photo and that indicates that someone superimposed an image or object in the photo which indicates photo alteration and (2) the real Oswald had a pointed chin, whereas the "Oswald" in the infamous "backyard" photos has a square chin.

[@michaelbarlow6610]

The Dartmouth College professor in his claim that the infamous Oswald "backyard" photos are not fake failed to mention that, for example, in Harrison Livingston and Robert Groden's book "High Treason", that book includes copies of the Oswald "backyard" photos which clearly show a crop line across Oswald's chin just below his lower lip which indicates that Oswald's face was superimposed on the body of whoever was standing in Oswald's backyard when that infamous photo was taken.

[@timberrr1126]

I am a pro photographer. The photo is not changed or airbrushed. The Oswald nose shadow is shown straight down. This is because his head is TILTED to the right. If his head were vertical, the nose shadow would be angled. Also please notice that Oswald's chin can look wider depending upon where the light is sourced. To see a broad chin on Oswald, look at the cover photo of the KZbin from CNN called "Lee Harvey Oswald speaks to the press" Simple photograph him with light that creates NO SHADOW ON HIS CHIN. The photo was taken by Marina his wife, so she said on a video interview. Oswald's chin will look pointed if there is a shadow ON THE SIDE of the pointed chin. If there no shadow, it looks wide. End of mystery.

[@michaelbarlow6610]

@@timberrr1126 . Other photographic experts disagree with your opinion and the Dartmouth College professor's opinion on this topic. In addition, photo experts many years ago discovered a crop line across the chin of the alleged "Oswald" in the infamous "backyard photos" when numerous successive copies of the photos are generated! That is strong evidence that someone superimposed Oswald's face onto the body of someone else! In addition, a Dallas police detective had a photo taken of himself holding that rifle and those communist newspapers in that backyard and has never given a logical explanation for why he took that photo of himself imitating "Oswald's" stance in those backyard photos! Also, a color photo of "Oswald" in the backyard of his Dallas residence supposedly exists which was determined many years ago by JFK researchers, but which has not been seen by the public. Also, Marina Oswald has changed her story so many times to the point where there are numerous inconsistencies in what she has said, which means that her statements about those photos cannot be taken at face value! You quite noticeably fail to mention that fact! So contrary to what you erroneously claim, the mystery surrounding those infamous photos is not by any means over at all!

[@timberrr1126]

@@michaelbarlow6610 I can easily prove that his chin can look both pointed or flat and wide. Also, a “crop at the chin” can simply be a minor shadow. Here is how to prove: Oswalds chin is similar to a a snow cone. It is pointed. But if you point this “snow cone” directly at the light, there will be no shadows anywhere on it. Without shadows, this cone looks like flat white paper. If there is any hint of a shadow, then we see it as a pointy thing. Oswald’s chin is like a pointy ball. In the front page photo of him being arrested, his chin looks pointy or wide. Why? Because the flash light is off center -- it then casts a shadow. I gave the name of this video in my post you read. Where the light is “bounced off the ceiling” the light is softer-and HIS CHIN LOOKS WIDE. So, Direct flash-pointy chin Bounced from ceiling flash--wide chin The sun was “broad enough” and “centered enough” to illuminate BOTH SIDES OF HIS CHIN. Then to make it better, the Sun is millions of miles away--so no light fall off due to distance squared formula. Again, the so called “crop line” is a shadow, not a cut line. Crop lines before digital were easily smoothed out by putting FROSTY scotch tape over the cut line then photographed. Also, by positioning the light so that the seam has NO SHADOW, and further by photographing with a row of lights or using a reflective umbrella or white card, this can soften it even more. Then, the lens could have a softening filter on it to really do a job. Because you and all the others have never ever reproduced a black and white photo, and never ever used lights to photograph a professional job, your opinions are well…lack any weight. Then I could add the technique of using a soft lead #1 pencil to draw directly on the “rough side” of the negative to remove shadows, crop marks, pimples. This is how those 1950’s high school pictures look so flawless. They could have used this technique to remove a crop line, a scar, a pimple or a blackhead!! So, you are trying to reason to a conclusion, but you don’t know enough! I can see a series of You tubes where Lee Harvey has BOTH WIDE AND POINTY CHINS. Search You Tube for “Lee Harvey Oswald speaks to” Look at the first picture on the YT. Plenty of wide chins there! Why? Because the light is coming from a broad ceiling source.

[@michaelbarlow6610]

@@timberrr1126 . Your overly long-winded response comment proves absolutely nothing regarding the "Oswald" backyard photos because it is just your OPINION nothing more , nothing less that the crop line in the photos is "just a shadow"! Other photographic experts with equally impressive (if not more) knowledge of photography, photographic techniques and photo modification than you disagree with you! You just can't seem to grasp that obvious fact! Just because you claim that those photos are legitimate, unaltered photos of the real Lee Harvey Oswald doesn't ipso facto make that so!

[@beaviselectron]

Even if we take Dr. Farid at face value and say that he has resolved all of the lighting and shadow issues on this image, it does NOT prove that the image is not a fake; examples abound, including a disappearing butt on the scope, high detail versus low detail, center of gravity, missing fingertips, rifle and newspaper lengths, chin shape, facial muscles, etc. I am truly glad he addressed the light issues, it leads one step closer to legitimacy; however, it is far from conclusive.

[@timberrr1126]

I am a pro photographer. The photo is not changed or airbrushed. The Oswald nose shadow is shown straight down. This is because his head is TILTED to the right. If his head were vertical, the nose shadow would be angled. Also please notice that Oswald's chin can look wider depending upon where the light is sourced. To see a broad chin on Oswald, look at the cover photo of the KZbin from CNN called "Lee Harvey Oswald speaks to the press" The photo was taken by Marina his wife, so she said on a video interview. Oswald's chin will look pointed if there is a shadow on the side of the pointed chin. If no shadow, it looks wide. End of mystery.

[@MrBarrynicholas]

The easiest way to check to see if this photo has been altered in any way is very simple and requires no three dimensional modelling or computer enhancing. If you take a fixed term of reference i.e. the newspaper he is holding (11" wide ) and the rifle (40" length). Get the dimensions of these items and use them to ascertain the height of the person holding them. Lee Harvey Oswald was 1.75 m 5' 9" The person in this photo using these fixed measurements is only 1.65m 5' 4" maximum. To me this proves photo is a fake.

[@johngarnergarner6724]

Here's the fallacy of your thinking on the photos. Looking into the story behind the photograph in the back yard it becomes clear that the photo was not faked. The most important factor is that Oswald's wife testified that she took the photograph. In addition, Oswald wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the back of the photo and gave it to George de Mohrenschildt.

[@MrBarrynicholas]

John garner garner There is nothing wrong with my findings. Marina (the least most important factor in this) was being threatened with deportation so basically agreed to say anything the FBI wanted. One of the photos was made public in February 1964, simultaneously appearing on the cover of Life magazine and on the front page of the Detroit Free Press. It was noticed that the photo appeared to have been tampered with since details differed from publication to publication. In particular, details of the rifle differed. For instance, in the version that appeared on the cover of Life Magazine, Oswald's rifle had a sniper scope. But in the version that ran in the Detroit Free Press, the sniper scope was gone. With regards to body size. Another way of working out the height of someone is from their head measurement. The height of most people is made up of eight head heights. In all three photos Oswald's height varies and in one photo he is only seven heads high. They made his head size too large for his body. The photos are FAKE.

[@bertjesklotepino]

I think it is funny that they found another copy of this picture in the hands of George de Mohrenschildt or how you spell it.......... and it is a better quality one........... And what i find funny also is that them heads on the different pictures are all the same............... Almost exactly the same. Something just doesnt add up. Especially considering the FACT that this picture was published in LIFE and they put this text next to it: Lee with the weapons he used to kill JFK and Tippit. They published it while the Warren Commission hadnt yet published their report............. And there is a shitload of things that show it to be fishy. As for the most important factor, his wife testifying................ Get real. Somehow her testimony is taken for real, and most important, while the testimony of trained doctors and such is swept under the rug.

[@bertjesklotepino]

Anthony C, Microdots. Woohooo! Except: What if i were to make a fake composition, and then take a picture? The commission determined........Sure, and the next one determined that it WAS a conspiracy. Even LBJ himself wasnt sure. The lens and glass you talk about, nice. But it was scratches done by the film-guide in the camera which made them able to determine it was that camera. However. If you make a fake composition and add a layer with the scatchmarks and such details, and Then take the picture...... I always found it Very strange that they found another such pictures with mr G DeMohrenschildt. Its as if Willem Oltmans did speak the truth. Not just that, but it was of a better quality than the others they had found. But what is even more funny is: it was Published on the Front Page in the LIFE magazine with the caption: Lee with the weapons he used to kill the President and Tippit. Except the Warren Report hadnt been published when that magazine was published. How did they know for sure that this was the man? And do you think those working in a bussiness like a Life Magazine and such, that they dont know how to use pictures, make pictures, alter pictures, etc? And what was also a very funny thing is that they actually Found material which could be used to fake the picture, like masks and such...... But the explanation was something like: Nah, i just wanted to check if it was possible. But it all doesnt matter, picture or no picture. A picture like that doesnt prove somebody has actually done what he or she is accused of doing. And CE399 shows quite perfectly that Lee wasnt alone. You may twist it, you may distort it however you like. Every person who actually uses a small piece of his or her brain can understand that if a bullet hits a skull and explodes, it is highly unlikely that a similar bullet is able to shatter 2 bones of which one a wristbone, and come out looking like the CE399 bullet looks like. Plus: If Lee was smart enough to use an alias to buy a weapon...... Smart enough to go to Russia, learn the language, come back and so on........ (smart as in knowing how to etc.) Smart enough to think up a plan to kill the president, and so on....... All of this shows he had some brains which he used.......... And yet when he actually has done what he has planned to do, he leaves behind 3 bulletshells at the window he shot from..... which then ofcourse gives Police the hint: There might be more....... Yet he again shows he is using some parts of his brain because he does hide the rifle. Then he is seen by Roger Craig stepping into some kind of stationwagon. And, if Roger Craig had not seen that, Lee would not have been asked about it, and Lee would not have confirmed it by saying: Leave Mrs Paine out of this. It was her car Roger Craig had seen. (most likely) But then he again shows to have the ability to use his brains. But lateron he kills Tippit according to the official story, and then he empties his REVOLVER at the spot..... Leaving behind the shells right there......... And then lateron he again uses his brains because he then has seen that he is spotted and decides to hide in a theatre where he is arrested ofcourse. But, before that happens, somebody knew this is the man who both murdered JFK and Tippit, because that somebody wrote it down on the arrest report itself. At 1:40 PM that same afternoon. While the police was just called, or still had to be called, to get to the theatre to arrest the suspect, somebody already wrote on the arrest report: This is the man who killed JFK, Tippit and wounded Connally (or something to that affect). And you believe it, all of it. Just like you probably also believe they have found DNA from hijackers. Yet 1100+ victims of which no trace of DNA can be found what so ever. And black boxes? They just went up in the smoke. But they did find DNA from supposed hijackers who were in the fucking plane when it hit the building and exploded. No problem finding DNA in such a case. Black boxes, completely different story ofcourse. Yeah........... And you actually think people will eventually even believe a lie like that. Get real.

[@randallanthony1794]

she said some photos not neccessarily these

[@JENDALL714]

Well, he does not state specifically it is fake, he said it would be hard to do.

[@johnfoster535]

The guy below's comment has it BACKWARDS !! The way to EASILY prove that the rifle Oswald is holding in this picture is NOT the same rifle as was found in the depository is to just LOOK and SEE the round hoop hanging down from the bottom of the rifle near the front which is meant to attach a strap to. This "hoop" for attaching a rifle strap is NOT found on the 40 inch Carcano that was found in the depository. THAT rifle has "D' ring attachments on the LEFT SIDE of the rifle only !!! Oswald is holding a 36 inch rifle in this photo !!!....it is EXACTLY what he ordered and it is NOT the rifle found in the depository which is a 40 inch model. The other way to EASILY prove that this rifle in the photo is 36 inches is to COMPARE,or , " SCALE the known width of the " Militant" newspaper, ( 11 inches), Oswald holds against his chest to the length of the rifle in the photo....it comes out to be 36 inches !!!!! Since this "photo analysis" was done at Dartmouth, ( of all places), it is worth noting that Dartmouth was the employer of Dmitri DeMohrenschildt, who taught as a Russian History professor there during the time that the young George H.W. Bush was attending the nearby Andover Academy, just at the start of WWII. Dmitri often visited his nephew and George Bush, who were room mates. It is believed that Dmitri was an OSS operative during the war... he and his brother George had fled Russia, along with their wealthy family to escape the purges of Stalin. George DeMohrenschildt ALSO became a lifelong friend of Bush...he kept his name, number and address in his address book.....it said " Poppy" Bush. During the war the FBI suspected George DeMohrenschildt of being a German spy after he was discovered " painting" near a military installation. No one REALLY knows what he was doing during the war, he claimed to be involved in producing " films"....yeah, right ! Well, years later, George DeMohrenschildt became Lee Harvey Oswald's "best friend" in Dallas, ( what a coincidence), and he babysat, gave rides, and provided money to Lee and Marina Oswald. DeMohrenschildt was the ONLY witness to testify for FOUR HOURS to the Warren Commission, incriminating Lee the whole time, claiming he SAW the rifle in Oswald's closet !! In the 1970s , DeMohrenschildt freaked out and made a lengthy filmed confession that Oswald was following HIS orders to kill JFK and that they had discussed the assassination many times !! He also implicated the FBI, CIA, and Hunt Oil in the plot. He named J.Walton Moore as the Dallas CIA Station Chief who instructed him to " keep tabs" on Oswald. After this confession, DeMohrenschildt wrote his old buddy , CIA Director G.H. W. "Poppy" Bush a desperate letter for help because he thought he was being followed for "talking too much" about Oswald. The very day that HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi found DeMohrenschildt in Florida, DeMohrenschildt decided to blow his head apart with a shotgun .....how CONVENIENT !! So, Dmitri, his brother George, and "Poppy" were ALL CIA and anything from Dartmouth would have to be SUSPECT !!

[@timberrr1126]

Oswald’s head is tilted, this straightens the nose shadow on his face.

[@brendanburke1650]

Dartmouth Professer has no idea what NPIC can do with images in the words of Dino Brugione the leading expert on photo imaging "They Can do anything they want to " his interview with Doug horne is daming of the FBI,CIA and ONI !

[@reginaldcortez8763]

Very good BB

[@josephstaab7636]

Anyone who believes a word out of the mouth of Doug Horne is a stone-cold fool.

[@vernpascal1531]

@@josephstaab7636 -You mean anyone who believes Belin,Bugliosi,Posner,baden,Rather etc on the Assassination is too fucking stupid for words!

[@satchpersaud8762]

Not for nothing i think Burgioni was telling the truth when he said that the zuprder film he saw, and used to make breifing boards wasnt the same zapruder film we see today

[@scottcarroll9201]

Even if you believe that photographic manipulation is much more advanced in the public sector than in the private sector (an absolutely ridiculous assumption but okay) there's NO WAY photo manipulation in the public sector in 1963 was advanced enough to pull this off. This professor has forgotten more about photography than you or I will ever know and he states the level of technical expertise needed to pull this off would be hard even today.

[@bradrook3919]

Yep if I was Oswald I'd have a picture taken of myself with a rifle brand they found and a pistol with Soviet News papers...then leave them in the Paine's garage just to incriminate myself... Yep...makes sense....nothing to see here...

[@jerseymusicman3332]

Videos like this only make me more certain that something ain’t right. There’s no way this “professor” hadn’t thought to NOT MATCH UP THE OTHER SHADOWS?... haha. Ok.

[@thearkworldlife8338]

He's got almost everything wrong and is putting his professional reputation at risk just for money.

[@americankulak2294]

Yes, you have it all figured out. Good job.

[@joshuamccracken1498]

@@thearkworldlife8338 And what is your degree in?

[@KlondikeG]

You Tinfoiler think you're smarter than Duh Sheeple. When, in fact, you gullible gumps are a bunch of 5watt bulbs.

[@zdcyclops1lickley190]

The analyst is a dunce. The shadow of Oswald's body is on a surface that is perpendicular to the body. The shadow of Oswald's nose is on a surface that is almost parallel with his nose. A line drawn from the tip of the shadow on the ground passing the same point on Oswald's head points at the light source as does one drawn from the tip of the nose shadow passing through the tip of the nose. Print the picture and measure the angles.

[@dr.willyvan2116]

Questions with the horizontal line that separates the different shaped chin from the rest of the head.

[@franclin0]

Was caused by making copy after copy of the original.

[@mikeivey7167]

@@franclin0 well then, the whole picture should have the same anomalies! Through the eyes, nose. Head. Good grief. It’s a fake picture.

[@franclin0]

@@mikeivey7167 it's not a fake picture, sorry. Every negative (film) has tell tale signs, like fingerprints that prove what camera it was shot in. The FBI found Oswald's photo negative and the markings proved it came from Marina's camera. Case closed.

[@mikeivey7167]

@@franclin0 yeah. I believe the F B Lies!

[@franclin0]

@@mikeivey7167 well, if you don't believe it, then that's fine, but if you claim it's false it's on you to PROVE it. And you can't, because it's not.

[@randallanthony1794]

This guy is either stupid or lying.hes not stupid.i hope cia paid him well he doesn't seem to be a cut rate type.

[@pariscommune9742]

This professor is on the agenda to prove his point But photo really looks odd in alleged context of head Also why a would be killer or even a common criminal will create an evidence or alibi to pose with weapons even though counter productive to him And then after being caught will not gloat and boast before the press and instead look dazed and confused

[@swankybutters8371]

The backyard photo was most likely Roscoe White with Oswald's face over his... If you look him up you will see he matches the chin and well, the mark on his arm that Oswald did not have. It's also a good chance he was the knoll shooter.

[@leemoore9933]

Maybe because he wasn't a criminal at the time, or maybe it's oliver stone bone's body and head and it was done for the movie see I can make shit up too.

[@Robowx]

What gets me about Oswald is he said. “I’m a Patsy.” Like you said he would gloat over the fact that he killed JFK!

[@williamquigley5836]

Actually, it is absurd to focus on this "iconic" photo; Since it has been clearly demonstrated that this gun was incapable of firing at the rate required to inflict all of the wounds, the photo is irrelevant. Why no discussion of the dozens of mysterious deaths and unsolved murders of people connected to the assassination or at least an examination of the many other issues raised by the many critics of the Warren commission. Oswald was framed.

[@geeram516]

His wife said she took that pic.

[@Sebadiah23]

GEE RAM For a lot of conspiracy nuts, they just pretend Marina is lying- nothing satisfies them.

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

@@Sebadiah23 - Why should she be believed about anything? She was a possible Soviet intelligence operative. Apparently had affairs with one of her interpreters as well as Oswald’s brother.

[@jamescarter8699]

According to the sun shadow there should be absolutely no shadow under his nose.the light is in his face.

[@dmison2013]

And Marina said she took the picture.

[@vernpascal1531]

She also said there was a conspiracy and her husband was framed...do you believe that as well?

[@johngarnergarner6724]

Exactly! Not only did Marina take the photo, Oswald signed it and gave it to George DeMohrenscheildt

[@mikepatrick5909]

Marina was threatened with deportation had she not played along....

[@johngarnergarner6724]

@@mikepatrick5909 no she wasn't. Do your homework. Not only did Marina take the picture, Oswald signed the back of it, "Hunter of Fascists" and gave it to George DeMohrenschildt. The photo was not faked

[@Billycash528]

Oswald had a narrow, curved-in, pointy chin. The chin in the photo (clearly a fake) has a broad, squared chin. This guy even proves that right when he does his 3d model! You can see the curved narrow pointy chin in Oswald's mug shot he uses!

[@timberrr1126]

@@Billycash528 Wrong/right. Oswald has a pointy chin WHICH IS A WIDE CHIN. Under point source light, it looks pointy. Under hazy light or neon light it looks wide and square. In the police station photos, his chin looks wide. In any close flash photos his chin looks pointy. I am a pro photographer. I am an expert. The day the outdoor shot was taken was a hazy day. So his chin looks wide. See, he has a wide jaw but a pointy chin. Therefore different light sources makes his chin look different.

[@Optics2024]

“These things happen in 3D in the real world.... So I’m going to recreate it on my computer”. 🙄

[@swankybutters8371]

The backyard photo was most likely Roscoe White with Oswald's face over his... If you look him up you will see he matches the chin and well, the mark on his arm that Oswald did not have. It's also a good chance he was the knoll shooter.

[@swankybutters8371]

Look up the 3 hobos and Roscoe White, they look a whole lot alike.

[@joelbaxter9398]

Was the photo of George Washington Bush Sr. Faked because I think that one was real but what was he doing in Dealy Plaza on the same day of JFKs assassination and why was he photographed leaving the book depository minutes before the first shot was fired and for all the protection that our president was supposed to have, why didn’t he see Oswald in the nest, and better yet why wasn’t he questioned extensively by the Warren commission and the shit that they are putting up on KZbin about him being friends with JFK is bullshit he was fired by JFK and so was Allen Dulles who was from old northeastern Money and who was a lawyer but more importantly he was also the director of the CIA and he had planned two successful Coups before his third one failed but his fourth one wasn’t a failure that was the one where he took our government away from us and I hope that he burns in Hell with all the other traitors to our country

[@swankybutters8371]

@@joelbaxter9398 There was a guy that looked a bit like George HW Bush there that day, it could very well be he was involved somehow on a lower level. Takes me back to that odd little laugh he gave when he was talking about Oswald, so strange..... so maybe. Same with the three tramps, one looks a bit like Hunt, in that one shot. The one that really hits me is mid sized tramp, he looks way too much like Roscoe White, hard not to notice but it looks like he is wearing a wig. To me, he it the most interesting part of this story and I have little reason to doubt his son Ricky...

[@mistervacation23]

The Spa Guy previously said that was fake. In fact, he said his face was superimposed onto another person’s body and that that is not Oswald He said the whole thing is a setup.

[@dennispfeifer7788]

What he is saying is don't believe your own eyes! Hey Doc. You forgot to mention that the rifle dont match Oswalds, the sling is mounts are not the same as on Oswalds rifle. Good try Doc, but no cigar.

[@johnestupido1418]

How do you know the gun and paper were not part of the original photo, but added later?

[@mightyfriends007]

I worked in a graphics firm for years. I was in charge of the camera work. This "professor" is full of crap! Take a look at his model again. The shadow on his model i definitely different! The lower part of his eye enclosures are missing the shadows!

[@jacobjones5269]

There’s a reason for that... He’s examining a print from a newspaper.. Look at the actual photos... They’re genuine.. Marina took them, they were match forensically to Oswald’s camera “to the exclusion of every other camera on earth”.. 4 expert panels, totaling over 30 photographic experts, all said they real.. Sorry, Charlie..

[@roberthargrave3636]

If the sun is above you can't get shadow from the plants on the fence it doesn't happen anywhere on earth as face shadow is around high noon plant shadow eigher early morning or late afternoon, I am surprised that a Dartmouth professor teaching photography can't see that in regards to lighting angles, the other problem is the head doesn't anatomically line up with the neck suggesting it is cropped no they didn't have Photoshop in that time period and original photo is probably not what you are looking at, took his head paste it on another body and take a picture of that picture, interesting fact that one original so called photo made it's way into every news station affiliate in the Dallas area that aired at the same time every one got a copy except no copy machine in that period eigher. I'm far more intrigued by the cheif of Dallas PD on the rooftop with a rifle and scope during the shooting bet we didn't test his rifle.

[@travisbanger7316]

Dear professor Farid: Where are your files? I would like to download them - ALL of them. Are they in a website at Dartmouth? What software applications did you use? You speak of science and yet seem to be unfamiliar with: (a) Trial by fire and (b) Peer Review? Due respect, but until you provide your data to the public, you are no better that Dale Myers, who is a well-known liar, bought and paid with the 40 coins of Judas.

[@ronniebishop2496]

Travis Banger He knows that nothing would ever be good enough for some people.

[@432b86ed]

Ronnie Bishop, Would it be asking too much of the professor if he would explain how Oswald's chin only looks like Chuck Norris's in those two photos? REPLY

[@ronniebishop2496]

Zakk Gardner he's a plant to try and explain away things. He'll have an answer for everything

[@gregoryklein3311]

Once again these people keep on spelling there last names wrong. Clarification here...Professor Fraud....thank you.

[@Wills-Corner]

The chin is not Oswald's. Plus, the Dallas Police couldn't find that shirt in his possessions.

[@apointofinterest8574]

@Willy's Reviews and More: No, it's Jay Leno's chin. P.S. The shirt fibers matched.

[@uzmandoktor7091]

Marina Oswald said that she had taken this photo in the garden.

[@romankatz982]

Yep. That should settle it. The photo is not phony if she was the one taking the photo.

[@johncooper7663]

@@romankatz982 the negatives were hidden in her shoe by the way

[@billmurray4063]

And he endorsed and signed at least two of them!

[@vernpascal1531]

@@romankatz982 -Except there are several photos. Not just one. Also who cares what she said? She was under threat of deportation.The Warren Commission filled with the most prestigious people in the country and lied about the death of a President> So yer faith in authority is ever so touching.

[@ligayabarlow5077]

The shadows under the nose on his model are substantially different in width and dimensionality from the original upon which it is based? Why aren't they exactly interchangeable? Wouldn't they be if his method and its application were correct?

[@davidcopson5800]

God only nose.

[@MumblingMickey]

@lola4jvb4lho I think the missing finger tops where he was originally holding something round like a glass is more telling... and to be honest the fact that such a high degree of 1960's imaging technology was invested in this is more telling... but whatever the reason for such an investment of time, money and technology the images have been altered... clearly altered, its not in dispute by anyone who works with images... we all know its been altered... what we don't know is WHY!

[@moyadapne968]

That head photo was cut from a movie taken in the DPS Nov 22. The shadow under the chin is from overhead florescent lighting in the hallway. There's photos of FBI agents in a similar pose. The three backyard photos of LHO have EXACTLY the same background shadows, even though Marina had to lower the camera to wind it on. She didn't use a tripod. (Groden's book.)

[@timberrr1126]

I am a pro photographer. The photo is not changed or airbrushed. The Oswald nose shadow is shown straight down. This is because his head is TILTED to the right. If his head were vertical, the nose shadow would be angled. Said another way, the nose shadow is angled like his leg shadow, but his head is angled/tilted and this makes the shadow look like it goes straight down. It is a kind of logical deception. Also please notice that Oswald's chin can look wider depending upon where the light is sourced. To see a broad chin on Oswald, look at the cover photo of the KZbin from CNN called "Lee Harvey Oswald speaks to the press" Simple photograph him with light that creates NO SHADOW ON HIS CHIN. The photo was taken by Marina his wife, so she said on a video interview. Oswald's chin will look pointed if there is a shadow ON THE SIDE of the pointed chin. If there no shadow, it looks wide. End of mystery.

[@former5-0trustjesuschrist57]

Clown!

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

What did they do about the cut on Oswald’s face and his swollen eyelid?

[@Whisper6911]

well this guy is extremely disingenuous about not working his way backward to a premise. as someone who messed around with 3d modelling myself i will say that him saying so and a screenshot aren't exactly solid evidence. you can get pretty much anything to work if you are willing to cut some corners. considering what we don't know; hardware, software, variables (the only elements in the rendition are the ones he needed to make his point, the entire rest of the scene is missing, how the distance of the light source, the sun, was simulated in the program (distance has a major influence on shadows. the further away the greater the uniformity) to name but a few. the only way i can explain (and notice this guy makes no attempt at all) shadows diverging like that is with a light source that is very close to the subject. furthermore the clarification of one anomaly does not effect any other arguments in favour of alteration. and moreover the title actually states that this guy is proving a negative, a logical impossibility. this is a fallacious and sloppy attempt at debunking, not a genuine search for truth. maybe this particular professor should stick to training coders. this kind of thing requires a physicist.

[@banjohombre]

And you need a spelling coach.

[@dallasbrubaker6054]

Where are the words not spelled correctly?

[@banjohombre]

Dallas Brubaker Grammar coach rather. But closely allied courses.

[@dallasbrubaker6054]

banjohombre so nothing

[@banjohombre]

Dallas Brubaker Yes something. Extend yourself.

[@gregorybathurst7171]

The faces on the two photos are from one original source there for the face was pasted on the two pictures..

[@JulianVail]

This guy's opinion is totally inconsistent with with the experts have proven for decades that these photos are fake.

[@scottcarroll9201]

Forensic photographic experts for the Warren Commission, the Ramsey Panel, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations all testified that these photos were real. What "experts" are you citing?

[@peterpan3634]

did you compare this photo with the other photos , and looking at the deferences

[@RUBENV1960]

Dartmouth, his left-hand looks deformed when he is holding the paper? Same pic, his arm looks like its growing from the of his body, but our eyes are wrong? Anything that looks weird, but the parts that look right is right or is that wrong also? I'm so confused.

[@stargazerspark4499]

the whole thing is a mess and looks out of place. a sloppy, rushed frame-up job.

[@johnoliver3565]

Unless you had the originals this analysis means little. The picture the police took has a difference in the fence behind him

[@kraljo1]

So many people look into one tree without realizing the wood is all around.

[@jerseymusicman3332]

kraljo1 no idea what this means... but it’s strange... it gave me wood.

[@baobo67]

@@jerseymusicman3332 Maybe he means "Cannot see the forest for the trees" or maybe not.

[@rprp7762]

The smoking gun with this picture proving its fake is his right hand 0:09. the one holding the newspaper. his fingers look short, thick and arthritic (look at middle one, its nearly double the size of the middle finger in his left hand). all fingers from his right hand look totaly disproportionate compared to the left hand holding the rifle where they are long and slim. thats enough to prove its a fake. not even going to talk about the 2 pictures of his head being EXACTLY the same size, looking in EXACTLY the same direction which is a photographic improbability.

[@dougjstl1]

2 pictures. exactly same face on both pictures

[@vernpascal1531]

Yes and the chin obviously does not match Oswald in custody.

[@michaelchmelko3166]

@@vernpascal1531 yep all the experts are wrong and you are right. Yep hundreds of people are all lying. Echoes are evidence and expert ballistics FBI agents findings are wrong. Sorry but Oswald did it as sure as the earth revolves around the sun. You refuse to 3xcept hard evidence always claiming the Government is fabricating it. Common sense and science along with critical thinking take a backseat to foolish thinking and willful ignorance. Posner and Vincent Bugliosi blow away that stone age reasoning that CT folks put forth.

[@charlesrobbins2208]

@@michaelchmelko3166 you crawl into every videos comment section to argue with the people posting there. Never providing proof of your beliefs, no evidence provided, not even a small tidbit of information one could pursue to determine whether or not you are telling the truth. In other words, character assassination. The exact formula described in intelligence reports on how to handle criticism of government positions. Nice work, what are you.. about a gs11?

[@michaelchmelko3166]

Robbins don't you realize Oswalds wife took this picture. You don't know that? Move over and let the thinkers take over.

[@wotan237]

@@michaelchmelko3166 Not challenging you but do you know the reason why Oswald's tax returns are still classified ?

[@ezisakoolkat]

Why don't they simply go back to the same yard - take a picture of a man of the same proportion and in the same position, at the exact same time the sun would have cast that body shadow - and see how the shadows would fall? Unless of course they already have, and I am unaware of the outcome?

[@jrbonner5858]

He wife said she took the photos Of him and they are authentic . What else ya need

[@brianhutton2581]

is wife said that because she wont stay alive.

[@johngury]

"The rifle to height ratio measured directly from the original backyard photo is 0:6493 which would suggest a rifle length of 44:8 inches" I matched that ratio number of ~ a 4.8 - 5 inch photo measured difference using a 5' 9'' Oswald height and the other way with the Warren 40.2 '' rifle so that issue is clear. I was surprised that it would be that much, but with his combined posture and the different depth plane, hey it works straightening him in 3d and putting the gun in the same plane.

[@johncooper7663]

Oswalds wife admitted shooting the photos and was hiding one in her shoe when she was arrested. She knew it was damming evidence

[@johnrogan9420]

Bullshit

[@johncooper7663]

@@johnrogan9420 i am impressed with your command of words and how you constructed the counter argument. Now go f yourself..... and americans did walk on the moon.

[@bladedsaber3202]

Damn never heard about that before, learn something new everyday

[@whitefly2]

Not only did she have one in her shoe but a fourth picture was found in the effects of Roscoe White and Roscoe White had a bump on his right wrist which shows up in all the pictures.

[@baobo67]

She had no sole.

[@soda1496]

This is the same guy from the Vox video btw, the guy from the University of California-Berkeley.

[@Alexaklr]

Why did Farid only use one photograph when there were reportedly three photographs? Two were "found" among Oswald's things in a friend's garage in 1963. A third photo was "found" in 1977 among another person's things. I'd think this "computer scientist" would make an honest comparison of all the photos, not just one. Where are the negatives of these photos? Shouldn't Mr. computer man have looked at them too or regretted they aren't available? I would.

[@kennethhaughan104]

You have provided a little assurance that this photo was certainly taken in Oswald`s back yard and that the shadows have not been altered. However, why Marina took the photos , a few weeks after moving into W Neely St, N.O., shortly after Oswald received the rifle & handgun by mail order, after he allegedly fired a rifleshot at General Walker, and prior to his involvement with Judyth Vary Baker in preparing a cancer weapon to kill cancer. Oswald's subsequent involvement in promoting the Fair play for Cuba group as a means to infiltrate the organisation and expose pro Castro Cubans. The photos were taken to support Oswald`s claim that he was a Communist & Castro supporter him to enable him to infiltrate like minded groups . Which of course strengthened the case against Oswald being Kennedy`s killer when a patsy was required.

[@oldgoldtopgoldtop6039]

In 1978 the HSCA obtained another backyard photo that had been in the possession of Oswalds friend George De Morendchildt that was signed and dated in Oswald's own handwriting.

[@alekhidell7068]

Experts indicated that it was not Oswald’s handwriting.

[@oldgoldtopgoldtop6039]

@@alekhidell7068 what experts were those? I am only aware of experts stating it was his handwriting on the inscription "to my friend George" the signature and the date but was unknown Russian handwriting of "hunter of fascists haha".

[@americankulak2294]

The key evidence proving it: 1. The picture was taken by LHO's Imperial Reflex to the exclusion of all other cameras in earth. 2. Marina remembered taking it. 3. In 1967, George Demorenschildt found two exact copies of the EXACT SAME photograph on top of a box of papers Marina had sent him around August of 1963 with, "Hunter of Fascists, Lee Harvey Oswald, haha" on the back of one. 4. The copy of the Militant LHO is holding has an editorial in it from "L.H. in Dallas", which is why he wanted the picture. 5. Oswald had two cameras. If they wanted to frame him they'd use his Russian camera. But in truth he couldn't get film for it. So, he enlisted Marina. 6. He sent the pictures off to both the Daily Worker and the Militant after he had Marina take them. 7. It was taken on 3/21 at the Neely Street address and the shadows match the photo, which was taken about 16:00. 8. The HSCA investigation hired 12 experts to examine it. All 12 verified it. The only person who disagreed was Robert Grodon, who was not on the panel. He thought all pictures were fake and was later determined to be a high school dropout who had never taken a single photography class, had fled the military under less than honorable conditions, and was singlehandedly responsible for the Goldman civil suit against OJ Simpson after being a witness for Simpson, he was absolutely dissected on cross examination for being a complete fraud. He saw pictures of OJ in the murder shoes and concluded the Bills Media Guide from 8 months earlier was a photo that was faked. The guy is absolutely disgusting. This was suspected of being a fake by LHO while being interviewed (because clearly he's innocent just ask him). However, you would then have to explain why the Demorenschildts found these exact same pictures in their possessions three years later...and I doubt CTs have ever done that much creative thinking in their lives.

[@johngury]

Maybe Oswald had a huge case of arthritic damage in his little claw-like left hand, was abusing thalidomide, or had just finished doing the dishes and left on a vintage 60s playtex glove.

[@MrAmbassador11]

The photo is not "damning" because that is not Lee Oswald. The person in the photo has a square chin. Lee Oswald's chin is pointed.

[@beatlelennon9168]

Oswald said , that's my face but that's not my body.

[@Sebadiah23]

lennon beatle Credible source, lol- so stupid. He’d say anything to go free.

[@andrewwebb-trezzi2422]

I don’t think the question should be if the photograph was real or not. But rather who took it and why? It’s such a perfect piece of incriminating evidence that it’s almost too good to be true. He’s not only shown with the rifle and pamphlets but also wearing the pistol used to kill officer Tibbit outside the movie theatre. If he’s posing with the rifle indicating his intent to use it in the assassination, that would mean that more than likely the photographer had knowledge of the plot which also means that the theory he acted alone is mute and that perhaps one or more people got away with the assassination of JFK.

[@davidcopson5800]

*Tippit

[@alekhidell7068]

There is no hard evidence linking Oswald to the rifle. Neither the FBI nor the Warren Commission explained why Oswald ordered a 36" rifle, which Klein's had in stock, but received a 40" rifle, which Klein's did not have in stock. They never explained why the rifle was sold without a sling, yet the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD had a long leather sling. They never explained how Lee Harvey Oswald was able to pick up a package from the post office that was addressed to "A. Hidell." According to postal regulations a letter or parcel addressed to anyone other than the box holder would be stamped "addressee unknown" and "returned to sender." They never explained why or how Oswald was able to pick up a package that contained a firearm from the post office without filling out postal form 2162, required to be filled out by both the shipper and the receiver of a firearm. They never asked Klein's nor the post office for a copy of this form, which was required to be kept by the post office for 4 years. They never explained where or how Oswald acquired an ammunition clip or ammunition for the rifle. The FBI never explained what happened to the Klein's microfilm. The FBI never explained what happened to the original records they confiscated from Crescent, Harborside, Rupp, and Lifschutz. The FBI never explained what happened to the rifle (C2766) sold by Crescent to Klein's on June 18, 1962. This rifle (C2766), shipped to an individual whose name was known only to the FBI, could have been the rifle found by the Dallas Police on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is a serious shortage of hard evidence connecting Oswald to the alleged murder weapon. The supposed "evidence" consisted of nothing more than paper copies and photographs of altered and fabricated records. The Commission's willingness to accept COPIES AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF DOCUMENTS, instead of insisting on original documents, shows their collusion with the FBI in a deliberate attempt to try and prove that Oswald purchased C2766 from Klein's. The deliberate mishandling and misinterpreting of these fabricated documents was obvious when WC Attorney David Belin questioned Klein's Vice President William Waldman. Belin, again and again, blatantly misled and limited his questioning of Waldman in order to show that C2766 was sold to Oswald/Hidell. Then there's the question of the money order. According to the Warren Commission Lee Harvey Oswald left his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall during the morning of March 12, walked 11 blocks to the downtown post office, purchased a postal money order, and then mailed his order for the rifle to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago before returning to work. But the letter was postmarked 10:30 am, and company time records show that Oswald never left his job. He worked continuously from 8:00 am through 12:15 pm on 9 different printing jobs. The Warren Commission never pointed out that the envelope, time-stamped 10:30 am, was not mailed from the downtown post office where the money order was purchased. It was stamped and mailed in "zone 12," which was several miles west of the downtown post office and across the Trinity River. In order for this letter to have reached Chicago the following day, it would have to have been picked up by a mail carrier sometime after 10:30 am, delivered to the Industrial Station post office in zone 7, and then sorted and bagged into an airmail pouch. And the airmail pouch would have to have been delivered by another mail carrier to Love Field and then placed aboard an aircraft prior to it's 12 o'clock noon departure. If we are to believe the Warren Commission, then we believe that Oswald skipped work for an undetermined period of time on the morning of March 12, walked 11 blocks to the post office, purchased a postal money order, traveled several miles across the Trinity River in order to mail the letter, and then returned to his job unnoticed. And then, if we believe the Warren Commission, this letter was picked up by a mail carrier sometime after 10:30 am in zone 12, delivered to the post office in zone 7, sorted and placed into an airmail pouch, transported to the Love Field Airport, and loaded aboard the last flight to Chicago before the plane departed at noon. This money order was allegedly received by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago the following morning, was included with over a thousand other mail orders from around the country, and then deposited into Klein's bank account. If this sounds a little farfetched, believe me, it gets better. All US Postal Money orders have unique serial numbers. In the fall of 1962, Oswald purchased numerous money orders from the same downtown post office and mailed them to Washington, DC, in order to repay a loan from the government for his travel expenses incurred when he returned to the USA from Russia. These money orders were purchased in numerical sequence beginning in November, 1962. These serial numbers show that some 1200 money orders per week were purchased at the downtown post office in Dallas. At this rate we see that Oswald's alleged purchase of a money order on March 12, 1963, should have been numbered 2,202,011,935. But the serial number of the money order published in the Warren Volumes was more than 118,000 numbers higher. At the rate of 1200 money order per week, this money order should have been purchased in late 1964 or early 1965. In other words, this money order could easily have been pulled from a stack of fresh, unsold money orders by a postal official in Dallas, sometime after the assassination, and then given to the FBI. A close look at the details surrounding the "finding" of the money order the day after the assassination strongly suggests that this is what happened.

[@rickmahoney317]

oswald claimed the image was fake, its said to be not oswald, but a man named Roscoe White who maybe one of 3 conspirators.

[@dolnick7]

It should be noted that Oswald repeatedly lied about everything. That he would lie about this photo isn't surprising.

[@timberrr1126]

Oswald has a wide chin but it is pointed. If you use a broad soft light source, the chin will look broad. If you use a tiny light source to the side, like a flash, it will look pointed.

[@5eurocups2005]

I wonder how much the professor got for this.

[@harveyschwartz2288]

Why does Oswald appear to tilt ?

[@gregoryklein3311]

Harvey Schwartz , Marina had a little to much vodka when she was shooting the picture....She was such a good shot....do we know whether or not she was at Dealey Plaza?

[@GaryMinter]

I've read about twenty books on the JFK murder, and am currently reading "Brothers in Arms" about the Kennedy brothers, the Castro brothers, and Lee and Marina Oswald....

[@gregoryklein3311]

Gary Minter , that is nice.

[@monamardelli5043]

He probably the type that reads with his finger

[@adamisko]

Look at the ears level of his model at 3:06 and 2:21 it proves actually that it is fake. Shadows corresponds only between the model and a picture, when model head was tilted so heavily that ears are on completely different level than on the picture.

[@banjohombre]

English a second language for you? No one alive could understand what you have written.

[@swankybutters8371]

The backyard photo was most likely Roscoe White with Oswald's face over his... If you look him up you will see he matches the chin and well, the mark on his arm that Oswald did not have. It's also a good chance he was the knoll shooter.

[@stephenmcelroyii7317]

Professor, I was in the 2nd grade when Kennedy was killed. I can even remember who told me about it, and my response, so I remember a lot of the written open source information available. I don't know what I was reading but it showed three different pictures of Oswald in a French magazine the American photo and another Magazine and each had something different in each picture, the Rifle had three different bolt action breach withe Rifle.

[@erricjohnson3372]

Look at how the strap is mounted in this picture and look at how the strap is mounted in the official picture of the gun the cops found in the Texas BD are they the same?????

[@johngury]

Farid addresses this issue with basic center of gravity views. Small details. The story I think true is that Dallas policeman Tippit was supposed to kill Oswald but either Oswald killed him in his attempt or he failed and then had to be killed. After that is when Jack Ruby was brought in to finish the job. I recall my parents sarcastic laughter when I asked why Ruby killed Oswald. They repeated the press story that Jack Ruby loved president Kennedy so much that he went insane and killed Oswald.

[@davidcritchley3509]

Usual conspiracy garbage. A lof of "ifs" and "maybes" and associations that could add up to something (or equally not so)

[@johngury]

@@davidcritchley3509 And your quality, sober assessment of the details of the assassination is?

[@ebeegeebeefofeebee3181]

The shadows on the face are not the same. He told the simple truth in the very beginning. The nose shadow is thirty degrees off from the body shadow.

[@apointofinterest8574]

@Ebeegeebee Fofeebee: Your comment is 30 degrees off from reality.

[@superchitownhustler]

Marina always admitted taking the pictures so there was never really any doubt they were real.

[@mightyfriends007]

That does not negate that she could have taken the original, but the one we saw was manipulated.

[@djf750]

@@mightyfriends007 you have an answer for every proof of NO conspiracy, don't you?

[@scottcarroll9201]

@@djf750 Of course he does. And if the conspiracy nuts can't extricate Oswald from a situation, they'll just claim he had a double. Whatever it takes man. Whatever it takes.

[@vernpascal1531]

@@scottcarroll9201 -We actually listen to the witnesses they tell you what occurred. If you weren't so damn arrogant you would listen to the X-Ray Tech Custer who mentions about a half dozen major things that show obvious conspiracy!

[@mikehood3424]

superchitownhustler Who is Ruth Paine, Roscoe White and Harry Weatherford (?)

[@louf7178]

Please spare us the dramatic camera angles.

[@beaviselectron]

This guy has completely destroyed his own credibility. The errors and omissions have to be deliberate, and therefore he knows that he is being dishonest.

[@perryhuntereagle1614]

What is a left hand person doing with a right handed pistol.

[@johnbruce4003]

Marina Oswald- Lee Harvey Oswald's wife, said she took that picture. Case closed.

[@user6008]

The conspiracy nuts hate you, carry on!

[@musicmann6812]

You dumb fucker!!! I'd be very surprised if you could even tie up your own shoestrings!!!

[@musicmann6812]

@@user6008 you prick, if you had a brain, you'd be dangerous!!!

[@musicmann6812]

@@user6008 John Hancock? It should be "John headcock" because your such a dick head!!!

[@paystarbuzzy]

John Bruce she later recanted. The real conspiracy here is on the part of those who work tirelessly to continue the cover-up and minimize CIA embarrassment. But that ain't gonna happen. In the long term, time will tell and history will show the CIA was LBJ's bitch pussycat.

[@ryanwilliams6206]

It's his face superimposed on someone else's body. Oswald knew alot about photography and immediately knew it was fake

[@apointofinterest8574]

@Ryan Williams: Apparently, Oswald's knowledge of photography was as shallow as is yours. Study the assassin's method: When caught, with scads of incriminating evidence stacked against you, always deny, deny...deny.

[@jwilton2909]

How convenient that this troll fails to mention how Oswald’s chin takes on a new shape in this photograph. Of course there is no analysis of this issue because he cannot use his computer app to manipulate opinion on this point. Regardless of the lighting, which I disagree with completely because there are many extensive analysis have been done in the past 50+ years that are much more persuasive, there is no way to explain away the changing shape of Oswald’s face by lighting. This kind of commentary serves a purpose in that it influences the opinions of younger generations into believing that through modern technology, critics of the “coincidence theories” of the Warren Omission can be discredited by “official” sources, which this guy is not. He is a disinfo agent, not an expert on this topic of conspiracy in the murder of JFK. Of course he present himself as just an interested civilian who happens to have access and ability (expertise?) in computerization (manipulation) of the famous photo that played a role in convincing the public that Oswald was “the lone nut” assassin. I doubt that this portrayal would stand up to any vigorous investigation into this man’s background and affiliations, say with some alphabet agencies, which have long had agents planted in universities for precisely this very purpose-to offer supporting (but non-official) or contradicting “evidence” on various topics, in this instance it is support of the official “coincidence” theory. According to the Warren Omission Report everything that didn’t stand up to scrutiny was the result of coincidence. And conveniently, there were many, many coincidences being highlighted all over the place with enthusiastic support or even participation of the mocking bird media, who even back then was compromised by CIA plants who did the bidding of the deep state. In fact this is when the term mocking bird media was adopted. An individuals associated with a prestigious university implies expertise and credibility that is often more believable than that of the majority of critics of the official storyline. So Dartmouth happens to offer contradicting findings to a troublesome piece of evidence that throws doubt on the official “lone nut/coincidence storyline. And I assume that the CIA or other interested party requested someone to present evidence to cast doubt on the notion of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. And how convenient, Dartmouth felt no need to present the view of anyone who might be able to cast doubt on Dartmouth’s official position on the Assassination of JFK. After all this is the Dartmouth channel, is it not?

[@timberrr1126]

I am a pro photographer. The photo is not changed or airbrushed. The Oswald nose shadow is shown straight down. This is because his head is TILTED to the right. If his head were vertical, the nose shadow would be angled. Said another way, the nose shadow is angled like his leg shadow, but his head is angled/tilted and this makes the shadow look like it goes straight down. It is a kind of logical deception. Also please notice that Oswald's chin can look wider depending upon where the light is sourced. To see a broad chin on Oswald, look at the cover photo of the KZbin from CNN called "Lee Harvey Oswald speaks to the press" Simple photograph him with light that creates NO SHADOW ON HIS CHIN. The photo was taken by Marina his wife, so she said on a video interview. Oswald's chin will look pointed if there is a shadow ON THE SIDE of the pointed chin. If there no shadow, it looks wide. End of mystery.

[@leemoore9933]

Oswald was guilty I just don't get all these conspiricay theories but some are entertaining some are ridiculous.

[@tuesdayjam5905]

I don't doubt he was involved, then set up as the patsy, as he claimed.....but are you suggesting he acted alone, or do you accept there was were at least 2 guns involved - and therefore a conspiracy.

[@junardamere4160]

Sure bud. Your analysis vs this one☝🏾

[@TheHeavensFellen]

So he just proved a 3-D model can receive info that has two incompatible shadows in same photo, make its comp model with 2 inconsistent shadows in same one image. Yeah, sounds about right. Now onto the enigma, was the backyard photo faked? No Comp needed, except for watching the lame video and commenting.

[@Marcoosianism]

I was going to mention that it would have been appropriate to show more details of his modelling, what type of light source, its positioning and the effect of it's location on the shadows - ideally in real time - because all I see here is a computer model showing the same implausible shadows as the alleged fakes.

[@kells4723]

Imagine having Christmas dinner with this guy. So, how’s work? ::3 HOURS LATER::

[@reds6081]

It’s not about if the photo is fake or real, the question is who asked him to take the photo, as LHO’s wife Marina she took the photo, I believe this photo is real but the question who asked him to take the photo? If we find out we will get into new game. Sad for these who fought for the truth and have died