The Fake Happy Family Picture: Experts Charge Andrews Air Force Base Photos of Elian Gonzalez are Mismatched Computer Manipulated Pictures. Implications and immediate recommendations discussed.

Finlay Society Working Group for Elian Gonzalez;

Contact  persons and telephone numbers:

The events of April 22, 2000 in Little Havana are a matter of public record, have serious implications for the laws of the United States, are adverse to the respect of human rights, the handling of child abuse, and various significant issues dealing with U.S-Castro relations. On the early morning hours, while it was still very dark and despite ongoing legal negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice in the person of the Secretary of Justice herself, Ms Janet Reno, Immigration and Naturalization Services law enforcement personnel removed forcefully Elian Gonzalez from the home where the survivor rafter had been cared for since being released from the Joe DiMaggio Medical Center nearly five months ago. Custody of Elian was granted to his uncle Lazaro Gonzalez since hospital discharge. During this time, Elian has been the object of intense media coverage. At the time of this press release, Elian has been in the custody of the U.S. Department of Justice and their officials for about 36 hours. Photographs of the assault on the Gonzalez family in Little Havana have been made public. Two photographs were published, after Elian was reunited with his family, through various media services on April 22, 2000. In one photograph Elian is behind his younger half brother, in the other Juan Miguel Gonzalez, the half brother, Hianny; Nersy Carmen- Juan Miguel's current wife- and Elian appear in what has been described - and up to now accepted without question - as a a new and happy family picture. In the words of Fidel Castro himself: "esta sí es una verdadera familia feliz" - "this is a truly happy family"

We centered our attention to these two sets of photographs. The first set are the two pictures from a single news source from Andrews Air Force Base. Of these two pictures, there is a photo of the four subjects. This is the photo that has been publized most. However, soon after it was made public, the size of the photo made available to the media and the internet sources was cropped and diminished to cut off two subject and leave visible only Juan Miguel and Elian. The second set consists of the multiple photographs and video clips available in the media and in our web site (www.finlay-online.com) taken from various sources who were at the scene in Little Havana at or about the time of the assault.

Soon after the set of photographs claimed to have been taken at Andrews Air Force Base were released, questions began to be raised regarding the
legitimacy of the well publized pictures. Some of the issues raised are summarized here:

a. Marisleysis discussed at a news conference in Washington, D.C. on April 23, 2000 that she cut Elian's hair, as she usually did, three days prior to the abduction. Marysleisis pointed out, after reviewing the Andrews Air Force Base photos that the hair line and length of Elian's hair are different in
the Andrews Air Force photo from what theywere at the time of the abduction from Little Havana. Several observers from our Working Group have made similar observations prior to knowing the date of the hair cut given by Marisleysis to Elian, the hair is in indeed shorter in the photos of the assault when compared to the Andrews Air Force Base photos.

b. An expert who has made declarations to Fox TV Network, pointed out a shadow in the left side of the face of Elian in the Andrews Air Force Base photo. This shadow is not possible considering other shadows in the picture and the lighting effect on Juan Miguel Gonzalez.

c. The dental status of Elian consisted of at least a missing lower incisor tooth easily observed in the Little Havana assault photos. The lower incisors
in the dentition of Elian in the Andrews Air Force Base is not clearly visible. It is not clear from the available data if the missing teeth were in any manner the result of the assault.

Since our organization in 1978, we have engaged in the work of The Finlay Institute a photography team who collaborates in many of our professional projects. At this time we wish to report to you the findings of our Working Group for Elian Gonzalez arising from the pictures defined above where questions of forgery and manipulation have been claimed.

Let us enumerate the photographic and graphics professional and medical conclusions of this phase of our investigation.
 
First. Considering the overall layout of the family picture taken at Andrews Air Force Base, we can assume that these photographs were taken with flash lighting at a distance of approximately six feet from the center of the group of subjects being photographed. A simple inspection of the photos suggests that the area which was probably manipulated or inserted within the family picture was the face of Elian Gonzalez. The arrival of Elian at Andrews Air Force Base occured some three to four hours after Elian was taken forcefully from Little Havana shortly after 5:00 in the morning. Elian was seen to be scared and crying during the assault. However, there is a freshness in the eyes of Elian in the family portrait that can not easily be reconciled and understood in view of the well documented traumatic events that preceeded his arrival in the Washington area in the early morning hours of the day.

Second. In the area of Elian's neck closest to the father's side,  there is an area with a clean edge, a harder image. This is located precisely where the head of Elian and the blue jersey join. When an image undergoes insertion into another, the junctions and edges of the two merging images must be softened. This means that the pixels of one area need to be made to match with the pixels of the other area being merged.  In any attempt to insert and match photographs utilizing professional computer technology, one can expect a nearly perfect match in the pixels of the adjoining areas.

Third. The optical density of the hair on Elian's insert and his father do not match. This suggests that the insert photo was taken at a different place and time with different setting than the photograph of Juan Miguel at Andrews Air Force Base.

Fourth. In the Andrews Air Force Base original family picture, the lady and the younger child were located closer to the camera by about one foot in reference to Elian and his father.  In fact, Juan Miguel and Elian are the subjects farther from the camera.  Considering these impressions, the head of Elian should have been the darkest in the picture. However, the face of Elian's inserted face is lighter, it appears overexposed when compared to the others.

Fifth. The highlights on the face of Elian in the Andrews Air Force Base are stronger than the highlights on the face of Juan Miguel. The behavior of light in flash photography obeys laws of optics and physics that make it impossible for these findings to support the Andrews Air Force Base family picture as genuine.

Sixth. There is an irregularity in the right upper extremity of Elian. There had been a suggestion from Ms Reno that Elian was taken to a medical facility in Homestead, Florida where some form of medical intervention took place. Details of whatever was done to Elian in the aftermath of the assault are lacking. However, we do not see evidence in the right upper extremity of a clear cut bandage or intravenous catheter, We note that the right upper extremity of Elian is well matched with the remainder of the picture, Thusly suggesting that the right upper extremity has not been inserted. The nature of the speckle is not clear from our investigation. One cannot rule out the possibility of involuntary or voluntary trauma.

Seventh. The face of Elian in the two Air Force Base pictures has features of a child who appears younger that the one who appeared in the last Little
Havana photographs and video clips. The ratio of the height of the head to the total body height is well recognized to vary as a function of age since fetal life to adulthood. At birth, the height of the head is approximately 25% of the height of the entire body. At the age of six years, the height of the head is only 20% the height of the entire body. Considering the total body rate of growth, this analysis supports the professional photographic
impression that the inserted head of Elian has a slightly larger size than what it really is in relationship to the actual body height of Elian at the
time of the abduction.

Eighth. The illumination recorded in the eyes of Elian and Juan Miguel Gonzalez does not match in intensity. The intensity of light reflection in the eyes of Juan Miguel is appreciably greater than the intensity of the same light from Elian's eyes in the picture. Considering a point we have already
discussed (fifth ) that the light exposure of the face of Elian is lighter than the exposure of his father's face, one would expect  that the light reflection from Elian's eyes should have been brighter, stronger, more reflective, than what they are observed to be.

Ninth. There is a subtle but definite area of missmatched tones between Juan Miguel's head and Elian. These lighter tones are surrounded by shadows. We suspect that the lighter tones at the area of merging images has resulted from so-called softening and manipulation of the images in order to literally hide the edges.

Tenth. There is a line that transverses the face of Elian in the Air Force Base picture from the right to the left zygomatic areas. This line divides the facial color and tone above and below it. These significant observations suggest that the smile pressumably shown by Elian on his arrival in the Washington area belongs to still another original photograph. This subtle but conclusive finding may have been required to partially hide the dentition and/or change the emotional status of Elian at that time.

>From these data and the antecedent considerations discussed by Marisleysis and other experts,  we can conclude that the Andrews Air Force Base pictures are indeed the result of  an insertion and merging technique thereby changing the nature of the original photograph to show a head and face of Elian from another- earlier- photograph or photographs. The technique utilized is technically commendable but not perfect having the deficits that we have pointed out here.

Beyond the technical issues we have discussed from pixels to growth of the head in proportion to the body of a child, we recognize that  the pictures of Andrews Air Force Base have been published and are being utilized as genuine by the media and other people to suggest a "happy new family." We propose that the said picture is a forgery, a blatant attempt to change or hide the true status of Elian, physically and emotionally,  after his removal by force from the home in Little Havana where he lived openly, accessible and in freedom during nearly 5 months.

Considering all of these data, we therefore ask for:

*An immediate investigation of the actual negatives and photographs claimed to have been taken at Andrews Air Force Base to verify their authenticity.

*Immediate identification and disclosure of the Air Force photographer of staff who took the said pictures.

*Immediate investigation of the "two U.S. TV networks" that are claimed to have publicized the Andrews Air Force Base pictures.

*That Juan Miguel Gonzalez, his legal staff, the U.S. Department of Justice andthe U.S. Air Force of genuine, high quality glossy prints of all the pictures with their negatives.

*The immediate assistance of the U.S. Congress and the World Health Organization to openly investigate the issues surrounding the photographs, and the current mental and physical status of Elian Gonzalez who is presumed to be at Andrews Air Force Base in the custody of United States.

*The immidiate assessment of the status of the dentition of Elian Gonzalez with particular attention to the missing teeth and how this may relate to the events of April 22, 2000.

*The immediate release of all medical, hospital, and dental records in the possession of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Air Force in Florida and elsewhere pertinent to Elian Gonzalez during and after the April 22 events which occured through an executive order pressumably from the Secratary of Justice. These records and the current physical and mental status of Elian Gonzalez must be reviewed in connection with the observed child abuse and possible physical and mental injuries incurred on a defenseless child. Injuries which he may have sustained as a rewsult of his removal by force as carried out y the U.S. Justice Department.

PICTURES HERE




Contacts:
E-Mail: agordon@finlay-online.com Beeper# 305-841-4517