To prove that it wasn't altered from the original? Sorry but I still remember evangelists trying to pass off bird fetus pictures for human fetuses to make their point. Once bitten, twice shy.
Who's to say this was little more than a blue that they added more distinguishing features? It's not just the media and government that will try to manipulate you.
To prove that it wasn't altered from the original?
It wouldn't. There is nothing suspicious about 1955 analog, black and white photography producing decent resolution. You may as well be doubtful of the age of the 'Mona Lisa' based on its resolution. It's just nonsense.
All you needed to do was google 'baby in womb 1965'- images and you would see that same image in color unless you think Life magazine doctored that photo 8 years before Roe v. Wade
I'm gonna have to press X for doubt on this one, chief.
What we are looking at above is the digitized version of an analog photograph. Why would it have low resolution?
To prove that it wasn't altered from the original? Sorry but I still remember evangelists trying to pass off bird fetus pictures for human fetuses to make their point. Once bitten, twice shy.
Who's to say this was little more than a blue that they added more distinguishing features? It's not just the media and government that will try to manipulate you.
It wouldn't. There is nothing suspicious about 1955 analog, black and white photography producing decent resolution. You may as well be doubtful of the age of the 'Mona Lisa' based on its resolution. It's just nonsense.
The Mona Lisa is well known for having lost much of its color and detail over the years so that's not a great example.
Per commenter above who located the source Time magazine in April of that year: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e8f34f87a345373d30a3760a7083f5d9b359053c/0_0_1535_1798/master/1535.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=f5c043aa3b18f81c5057be28d93f464f
1965
Still pretty bad image quality back then.
All you needed to do was google 'baby in womb 1965'- images and you would see that same image in color unless you think Life magazine doctored that photo 8 years before Roe v. Wade