Throughout history, I can think of no photo which has had its authenticity debated more than the photo published on LIFE Magazine’s February 21, 1964 cover of Lee Harvey Oswald. As a matter of fact, the “LOL” image above which was posted a few years back in a thread called LOL President on Fark was the inspiration that eventually lead to the birth of this site. So, depending on how you feel about TLS, you can either thank or blame that random Fark forum member.
I call that Lee Harvey Oswald photo “The Father of all Photo Controversies” because it is. There have been acres and acres of text devoted to it – there is even an extensive 45 minute online documentary which points out all kinds of evidence as to why the photo above has to be a fake. Let me just state for the record, I do not agree with any of their claims, and believe the photo to be authentic.
The LIFE cover was taken from 1 in a series of 3 photos of Oswald that were snapped within a few seconds of each other (see above – the image LIFE used is on the left). Despite the fact that Marina Oswald testified on several occasions she had taken the photos, and the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations consulted with numerous photographic experts who concluded the photos were authentic, conspiracy theories about the legitimacy of the photos still abound.
Most of the evidence people use to dispute the authenticity of these photos have to do with the shadows. The documentary I linked to above even goes so far as to point out that the 3 images could not have been taken seconds apart, as the shadows cast by Oswald’s body are at different angles. For example, in the middle photo the shadow is slightly shorter and more right, but this is due to the photographer moving closer and Oswald moving slightly to his left. Pretty much every conspiracy theory I’ve heard about these photos can be explained via natural means. Dartmouth Digital Forensics expert Hany Farid recently analyzed the iconic photo of Oswald using 3-D digital modeling technology in which he puts the conspiracy theorists shadow evidence to rest…
I invite you to watch all the videos posted about here, come to your own conclusion and post your theories in the comments section. Unfortunately, even though I agree with Hany and believe that the image is authentic, I think it will still be hotly debated for years to come.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 3 comments }
Yes this topic will be devoted for years to come. I for one also agree that these photos are authentic, and unlike the conspiricy nuts I’m open to evidence to the contrary. It’s just that the evidence needs to be compelling and convincing and not just designed or skewed to suit your own thoughts and theories.
I’m perplexed why it’s so easy to accept this “professor’s” analysis when he fails to address even one commonly found anomaly. Let me just list a few so the readers can get the idea…
1. Right hand is devoid of fingernails.
2. Length of gun as compared to Oswald length is off by at least 8 inches.
3. Attempts to stand in the position Oswald is in have never been successful.
4. Both publications Oswald holds have margins off by as much as 1 1/4 inches.
5. The gun in the photo is not the same as the one in the archive.
6. The sun, as reflected in his shoes is at the 9:00AM position, yet photo is claimed to have been taken early afternoon.
7. Photo has no discernible cleft, yet Oswald had pronounced cleft.
…and it goes on and on. So, despite what those in the “scientific expert class” say, these and other problems with the photo seem to persist.
I should add that, other photos have emerged over the years, one was found to be identical to the LIFE cover photo yet did not contain any subject. And you should look more carefully at the series of photos you present. If you play with the photos, you’ll find that they contain the same background. Not nearly the same, but the same. As in, taken from a tripod and photo manipulated to frame the subject (which didn’t happen I would argue). Or, the same photo was used to produce the composites that resulted in the series.
Consider that the digital tools we use today have warped our ideas of what photo manipulation use to involve. You know, some people with “special abilities” can merely glance at a photo and point out how they don’t make sense. And brother, they glanced at this one and spent over an hour pointing out how it was done.
I do admit, however that this is a nice job for a bureaucrat.
Thanks for your comment, Derrick. Although I disagree with your points if you have a site or more detailed (high res) versions of the photos that validate your points I invite you to share links to them here.
Comments on this entry are closed.