Some (notably folks like Fetzer) have claimed that the nonexistence of a rearward blowout in Z317 proves the film was doctored, noting what they think is a ?black blob? on the rear of the head. Professor Hany Farid, author of a highly cited paper on detecting image forgery conducted a study using computational modelling* and demonstrated that the darkness manifest on the rear of the head is consistent with natural shadows, revealing no obvious lesion.
Read the paper, or review Fig. 7 on p. 8. https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf (https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf)
*For those who autonomically respond with ?Garbage In: Garbage Out,? note that this is academic paper and as such all values applied to the model and how they were determined can be found on pp. 2-6.
Hary Farid did work for the gubermint. Enough said.
Hary Farid did work for the gubermint. Enough said.
Hary Farid did work for the gubermint. Enough said.
Did you even look at his analysis, he didn't just say "Abracadabra" and come up with some biased paranoid conclusion(as above) but every step of his work is detailed and can be replicated by anybody to validate his results.
JohnM
Why did he study just one photo?
And his report is based on poor conclusions.
"Hany Farid report3.3. Posture
?It has been argued that Oswald is leaning so far to the left as to be physically implausible. Our 3-D model allows for arbitrary views of Oswald?s body and measurements of his posture. Shown in Figure 7 are four renderings of Oswald?s body taken from the front, back, and left and right sides, each of which look qualitatively reasonable. The tilt of Oswald?s body was measured to be a physically plausible five degrees from vertical.?
Only problem is Farid was measuring the tilt on a photo which itself was out of tilt. On correcting the tilt, the angle that Oswald is standing is nearer to be a physically implausible 10˚ from vertical NOT 5˚.
The frame in question---------------------------
Why did he study just one photo?
And his report is based on poor conclusions.
"Hany Farid report3.3. Posture
?It has been argued that Oswald is leaning so far to the left as to be physically implausible. Our 3-D model allows for arbitrary views of Oswald?s body and measurements of his posture. Shown in Figure 7 are four renderings of Oswald?s body taken from the front, back, and left and right sides, each of which look qualitatively reasonable. The tilt of Oswald?s body was measured to be a physically plausible five degrees from vertical.?
Only problem is Farid was measuring the tilt on a photo which itself was out of tilt. On correcting the tilt, the angle that Oswald is standing is nearer to be a physically implausible 10˚ from vertical NOT 5˚.
Only problem is Farid was measuring the tilt on a photo which itself was out of tilt. On correcting the tilt, the angle that Oswald is standing is nearer to be a physically implausible 10˚ from vertical NOT 5˚.
Only problem is Farid was measuring the tilt on a photo which itself was out of tilt. On correcting the tilt, the angle that Oswald is standing is nearer to be a physically implausible 10˚ from vertical NOT 5˚.
Looks like Ray goes to the Cakebread Correspondence School of Gut-Feel Analysis.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/34g1z84.jpg)
Let's just say I wouldn't want a CT plumbing my doors.
Maybe you should plumb your photo first, Jerry.
Why? The area behind where Oswald is standing happens to be the most-true-to-vertical part of the 133A photo.
How about producing some graphics of your own? Gut feelings and vague hunches aren't that measurable.
The Oswald tilt article by Farid:
https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/jdfsl15.pdf
What's holding up the guy to the right... ???
(https://s19.postimg.cc/kz1qecfnz/Jerry_Oswald.png) (https://postimg.cc/image/kz1qecfnz/)
Craig Lamson's graphic showing a 7? tilt when the perspective is corrected. True-verticals were found by Craig on the house, the post behind the left shoulder and the vertical on the far-right of the shed.
Interesting. I know Craig still lurks here. How was it determined that these are true verticals? PM is fine.I believe he worked off the assumption that the house verticals were the most accurate.
Glad to see that Lamson agrees with me that Farid was wrong when he said Oswald was leaning at 5˚. If he was wrong in this, then why take his word on his comments on the nose shadows?
As far as I know, Lamson never said he disagreed with Farid. He has told me he disagrees with 10˚, which was your figure and for which you have yet to provide a graphic justification.
Let's not forget that in 133A, Oswald's left side is closer to the camera than the right. This would contribute, I would think, some perspective distortion to an angle of tilt.
Farid's model (when shown more true-on) seems to show a 5˚ tilt.
The world's greatest photographer (IHOO) says that Oswald was leaning at a greater angle the Farid said, so by default he is disagreeing with Farid. Whether ia m correct or not is immaterial. A lone nutter has agreed that the so called expert, Farid, was wrong, which is what I have said all along.
Rather than check out what I said in my previous post about perspective possibly being a factor, you would rather promote a false narrative that Lamson and Craig are in disagreement.
And bask in the self-illusion that you're smarter than them all.
Farid says that Oswald was leaning at an angle of 5˚. Lamson says 7˚. Only to a lone nutter would this mean that they don't disagree about the angle of lean.
Rather than check out what I said in my previous post about perspective possibly being a factor, you would rather promote a false narrative that Lamson and Craig are in disagreement.
Lamson and Craig are the same person.
Lamson and Craig regularly disagree with each other. They are both very disagreeable. :D
Hey, Ray. How's that Mitcham fellow -- who talked something about 10˚ -- doing these days? ::)
He's fine Jerry. How's that guy, Organ, who believes in the daft single bullet theory doing?
Still tooting the "physically implausible" horn. And the experts got it wrong.
The only expert who got it wrong was Farid.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/1z6tj5c.jpg) | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Blank300.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Blank300.png) | |
| (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Blank300.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Blank300.png) | Hint: Both are correct | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Blank300.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Blank300.png) |
Proven by your fellow Lone nutter.