Epilogue (Backstabbed: The History of a Photograph)
My article "Backstabbed: The History of a Photograph" has raised sufficient alarm within the DIA's COI
http://www.stephen-devoy.com/articles/images/solidproof_small1.jpgNTELPRO operation that they felt compelled to release yet another doctored version of the original photo. Their hope is to claim that the new doctored version is the original version. While I can prove, using both evidence in the doctored photo and historical evidence, that the new image is also doctored, there are important questions, from a logical point of view, about the new document. In the first doctored image (click thumbnail to the right), one can clearly see the arms of my chair at Cycorp. I am also wearing glasses I only wore at Cycorp. I only wear glasses when using the computer. The glasses remain in the second doctored image, though the imposed background is out of doors and no computer is before me. My left hand, in the second doctored image, remains in the position to rest upon the arm chair and, without the arm chair, no reasonable explanation can be given for the position of my left hand.
The image shows my face as it was three years ago, when the original photo was taken. I've changed quite a bit since then due to the stress of being harassed by COINTELPRO. The image to the right is a photo of me 1 1/2 years ago. I have aged even more since then. The next photo is a photo taken of me in Harvard Square a little more than one year ago. As you can see in the doctored image, I am much younger looking and heavier in the doctored image.
There is endless evidence of COINTELPRO faking and altering photos of me. Some of those will be displayed at the end of the epilogue.
What I'd like to do first, however, is point out some technical problems with the most recent doctored images and then ask some historical questions that would be necessary to back up COINTELPRO's claims that the most recent doctored image is an original image.
|In the newest version of the doctored image, look at my chest. You will see the computer generated shadowing of the hat that has been added to the original image. It casts upon the chest flickers of light ostensibly passing through the hat. Given the angle of the shadow, one must conclude that the sun is shining upon me from the right hand side. If the sun were shining on me from the right hand side, from a low angle as indicated by the shadow, then the right side of the hat (the left side from the viewer's perspective, would be shadowed by the hat itself. It is not shadowed thusly. In fact, the righting on the had, as indicated by the shadowing behind my head, shows darkening only on the left side of the interior of the had (as seen from the viewer's perspective), consistent with the lighting on the shirt, but inconsistent with the lighting of the exterior of the hat which is illuminated on the left side (from the viewer's perspective) as if the sun were strait above. |
What you are seeing is the product of a computer program. An object (the hat) colored as is, has been introduced to the image and a position for the sun has been selected. The computer program, then, generates a shadow of the hat, in relation to the hypothetical position of the sun, upon my body and upon the interior of the hat. The hat and my body are then conjoined, by the computer program, to form one object which is then superimposed upon another image taken outside.
Another aspect of the photo which is obviously fake is the shadow beneath my right arm. She sharp gradient was painted onto the image. It was not generated by a computer. The shadow is too dark, too abrupt and implies that the sun is directly overhead. This proposes a third sun, a thin atmosphere (or no atmosphere). Since neither I nor anyone else in the image is wearing a space suit, this needs explanation.
How can I prove this last assertion? Very easily! If you view the tree in the background, you will see that it is lighted from behind and to the right. This places the actual position of the sun in the background image in a different location from "my image." The image on "me" is coming from the right front and the image on the tree is coming from the right back. Since there are not two suns, the image is proved to be doctored.
There are historical impossibilities as well. I do not recognize the background in the photo. Therefore, I call upon COINTELPRO to tell us where the background is located. I also call upon COINTELPRO to tell us when the photo was taken. As I said, it must have been taken three years ago. Therefore, COINTELPRO must prove that I was at that location three years ago.
Three years ago, I was in Austin, Texas. I can document the three protests I attended during that time frame. I can also demonstrate that none of them were in the location of the background of the photo. Additionally, I own no such hat and I do not own an Arab hat scarf shown around my waste. I also ask, for what logical reason would one wear that hat with that scarf?
On another historical dimension, since the photo was taken three years ago, it was taken during the winter of 2001/2002. This is before Bush was being equated with Hitler. I doubt that a T-Shirt with that design existed then. I certain do not own such a T-Shirt and I do not wear swastikas.
Why am I wasting my time explaining all of this? Well, I think this is important for all activists. It shows the lengths that the U.S. Government is willing to go in smearing activists and dissidents. Supposedly, we are in a war against terrorism that is stressing our economy. If we are in a real war against terrorism, why is the U.S. Government spending energies, moneys and resources taking down activists rather than preventing terrorism? Either they are wasteful and malicious, there is no war on terrorism (only a war on dissent) or both.