A WC Apologist's Stunning Blunder on the Backyard Rifle Photos and the HSCA PEP

[John Mytton]

One, you still don't seem to understand what "parallax" means. "Any difference in parallax"? What you should have said is "Any parallax." The term "parallax" means a difference in an object's position when viewed from two different perspectives. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Google AI:

Vertical parallax is the vertical separation between two homologous points in a stereopair of images. In optical and surveying contexts, vertical parallax must typically be eliminated to achieve a clear, stereoscopic view because it can cause eye strain and inaccurate depth perception. 

Or maybe you'll believe the University of Kansas:

Horizontal parallax describes the horizontal separation between two homologous points. . . .

Vertical parallax describes the vertical separation between two homologous points. (https://people.eecs.ku.edu/~jrmiller/Stereo/Section_05/Page_0020.php)

Two, the tiny parallax that the PEP detected does not prove the backgrounds are not the same. Simply slightly key-stoning the same background for three pictures could create the very small parallax that the PEP detected, which the PEP could only detect with computer-aided measurements and with high-magnification analysis, because the differences in distances between the background objects are too small to discern with the naked eye.

Okay, then where are the vertical parallax measurements? The paragraph that introduces the numbers in question says the measurements were done to calculate vertical parallax:

Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance from the center of the dark horizontal object to the bottom edge of the screen of the screen door in the background. . . . The results are as follows: (6 HSCA 178-179)

I trust you know what the term "results" means when used in a math context, right? Right? Yes?

So, again, where are "the results" of the "measuring" when "vertical parallax was calculated"? Where are they?

Give me the paragraph and page number in the PEP report. This should be really easy, unless you're going to argue that the PEP inexplicably "forgot" to provide the parallax measurements. When you go looking for those measurements, keep in mind that, by definition, parallax in photos is the difference in distances between background objects when viewed from two different perspectives.

And I look forward to seeing you tell all of us where the vertical parallax measurements are given in the report, if they are not "the results" that the PEP said came when "vertical parallax was calculated."

Here's a golden opportunity for you to quit your usual ducking and dodging and your usual act of refusing to acknowledge the meaning of key terms--you know, like "measuring," "measurements," "parallax," and "results." Here's your chance to blow me out of the water. All you gotta do is tell me where the vertical parallax measurements are given in the PEP report.

And for the sake of any newcomers and guests, we're talking about the fact that the PEP attempted to explain the apparent sameness of the backgrounds by announcing that their photogrammetric measurements found that the camera moved “slightly to the left” and “slightly downward” between exposures, and that the camera’s vertical movement was “very small” (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416).

In doing this, the PEP inadvertently provided strong evidence of forgery in the photos, because the camera’s horizontal and vertical movement would have been much greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story. If these photos had been taken by twice handing the camera back and forth and with a camera that had a lever that had to be physically pushed down to take a photo, the differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds would be much larger, would not be invisible to the naked eye, and would not be undetectable without computer-aided photogrammetric measurements and the use of microscopes.

The PEP had to use computer-aided photogrammetric measurements and microscopes/high magnification to detect the camera’s slight horizontal and vertical movement and the tiny differences in horizontal and vertical distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos 133-A and 133-B.

In doing the photogrammetric measurements to detect parallax, the PEP performed “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also performed “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” (2 HSCA 398, 405).

Why? Because the tiny differences in the distances between background objects are invisible to the naked eye and can only be discerned with computer-aided and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements.

Wow!!

Griffith, your thread title has backfired badly and your usual stupidity has been magnified by a factor of ten. Your continued pathetic amateur childlike analysis of the photo and film record is a perfect example of a classic Delusional Brainless Kook, and these meaningless excessively wordy responses in your weak attempt to bluff your way out of your bottomless pit is simply embarrassing.

BTW your latest Kooky assertion that "the tiny differences in the distances between background objects are invisible to the naked eye and can only be discerned with computer-aided and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements" is easily disproven, as the following example shows the difference between the gate and the screen door beyond is actually very visible! Hahahhahahaha.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

In the following GIF I lined up 3 palings of the fence and as can be easily seen and therefore not invisible to the naked eye, there is literally a bazillion parallax changes, the building, the window and the roof behind all shift, in addition the stairs and supporting post show major perspective changes as do the other objects on the right side, the windows and shutter also demonstrate this difference in the various camera locations.
Anyway, at the end of the day, the HSCA set out to refute the early backyard photo critics who alleged that a single background plate and basic keystone distortion was utilized for all of Oswald's Neely street photos but as can be seen in the following animation each background was taken from a unique location.



BTW, even the three fence palings I stabilized, show a perspective shift.

JohnM

[Tommy Shanks]

Excellent work by John and Mitch on this thread to debunk Michael Griffith's parade of backyard photo nonsense. By the way Michael : since the photos are fake, how is it that Oswald gave an autographed copy of one of them to George DeMohrenschildt?

[Lance Payette]

Propinquity, Michael's posts are all about propinquity. Keep that in mind and they start to make sense.

I see that Michael has been beating this same dead horse for more than 30 years. The exact same dead horse. Hence my reference to Michael's posts being the equivalent of an oldies station, with Michael in the role of Tommy James albeit without the Shondells.

GOOD GRIEF, the issue is clearly set out in the HSCA testimony of Calvin S. McCamy, at page 416: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0210b.htm.

He clearly explained that the PEP had determined two RATIOS. Then, "We find that the [horizontal] ratio is different on these two photographs, indicating that there has been a small change in the camera position from one photograph to the next."

DUH.

Then, "We apply the same kind of principle in the vertical direction." Ratios are determined "So that mere scale wouldn't change these things." Finally, "Again we find that there has been some vertical movement also, very small, but it is there." This showed that "the camera had been moved" and "the background was real."

DOUBLE DUH.

Michael apparently wants to interpret "small" and "very small" as "infinitesimally, impossibly small." OK, be my guest. OK, Marina didn't climb on the roof to take the second photo. I don't know how mathematically relevant it is, but the percentage difference between the two ratios is slightly more than 9%.

I can at least understand Michael - he's nuts. Unlike Jim Garrison, whom Tom Bethell distinguished from most CTers by having a sense of humor about his own nutty theories, Michael is the worst kind of CTer: Deadly, grimly serious.

Michael is not your goofy neighbor Vern who says the earth is flat, wink wink, nudge nudge, we're just having fun here. No, Michael is the scary guy who actually thinks the earth is flat.

Why do people keep arguing with loons like this as though they were arguing with rational people? Is there some fear that Michael's lunacy and Morley's lunacy and DiEugenio's lunacy and All the Others' Lunacy is actually influencing hordes of people or is going to change the verdict of history? I am increasingly starting to see those who continually engage with folks like Michael, Morley and DiEugenio as almost as unhinged as they are.

Whew, I think I'm done! I'm going back into the Factoid-Buster Cave and watch reruns of Andy Griffith because I'm starting to question my own sanity. At least I've had the excuse of near-terminal boredom while my Achilles heals.

[Michael T. Griffith]

BTW your latest Kooky assertion that "the tiny differences in the distances between background objects are invisible to the naked eye and can only be discerned with computer-aided and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements" is easily disproven, as the following example shows the difference between the gate and the screen door beyond is actually very visible! Hahahhahahaha.

JohnM

Oh, really?! The differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?! Really?! Well, could you explain, then, why the PEP experts could only detect them with computer-aid and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements? You might want to read the PEP report and Kirk and McCamy's testimony before you repeat this howler again.

Readers should keep in mind that you still have not repudiated your hilarious claim that the PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos. How could that be when the PEP admitted that their photogrammetric measurements showed the camera only moved "SLIGHTLY to the left" and "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?

Also, you still haven't admitted that you didn't realize the PEP factored in scaling distances in their calculations of their photogrammetric measurements to identify horizontal and vertical parallax. Remember when you claimed, repeatedly, that when the measurements were adjusted for scale, they proved there was "massive parallax"? Remember?

After reading your two latest replies, if I were a lone-gunman theorist, I wouldn't touch your claims with 10-foot pole. You are an absolute quack, and a rather rude one at that.

Finally, I'm still waiting for you, or Mitch Todd, or Lance Payette to tell us the paragraph or page number in the PEP report where we can find the vertical parallax, the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical measurements. Where is this crucial info in the report? This should be an easy question to answer, especially since only one determination was used to establish vertical parallax (whereas three determinations were used to identify horizontal parallax).

[John Mytton]

Oh, really?! The differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?! Really?! Well, could you explain, then, why the PEP experts could only detect them with computer-aid and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements? You might want to read the PEP report and Kirk and McCamy's testimony before you repeat this howler again.

Readers should keep in mind that you still have not repudiated your hilarious claim that the PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos. How could that be when the PEP admitted that their photogrammetric measurements showed the camera only moved "SLIGHTLY to the left" and "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?

Also, you still haven't admitted that you didn't realize the PEP factored in scaling distances in their calculations of their photogrammetric measurements to identify horizontal and vertical parallax. Remember when you claimed, repeatedly, that when the measurements were adjusted for scale, they proved there was "massive parallax"? Remember?

After reading your two latest replies, if I were a lone-gunman theorist, I wouldn't touch your claims with 10-foot pole. You are an absolute quack, and a rather rude one at that.

Finally, I'm still waiting for you, or Mitch Todd, or Lance Payette to tell us the paragraph or page number in the PEP report where we can find the vertical parallax, the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical measurements. Where is this crucial info in the report? This should be an easy question to answer, especially since only one determination was used to establish vertical parallax (whereas three determinations were used to identify horizontal parallax).

Sorry Griffith, but the same HSCA Photo Panel that you have so much confidence in, "found no evidence whatsoever of any kind of faking in these photographs". Oops.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, and Sergeant Kirk, I would like to ask you both, what was the panel's conclusion regarding the backyard pictures showing Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle and the revolver and the militant newspapers?'
Mr. McCAMY. We found no evidence whatsoever of any kind of faking in these photographs.

Just accept the fact that just after Oswald received his rifle and revolver, and just before his attempted assassination of General Walker, Oswald had his photo taken with his new toys!

Also consider that many months before the JFK assassination your fake backyard templates must have been taken, which can be seen by the considerable new growth in the plant to Oswald's left. Therefore to believe in some massive conspiracy, your conspirators crept into Oswald's backyard about eight months before Kennedy was scheduled to be in Dallas and took three separate photos and at some other time took three photos of Oswald's head with the exact same lighting conditions, the exact same camera, the exact same distance to subject is necessary because of the consistent film grain and finally because of lens distortion Oswald's head must be framed in precisely the exact same position within the photo and magically composited them all together?? As if!!



One of the many problems to be accounted for with compositing is matching the film grain in the Oswald composite head, the distance to camera needs to be precisely the same as the stand-in and background because any slight depth deviation will have a negative impact with the spacing of the film grain.



Due to the varying locations of Oswald's head within the camera frame and the camera angle, the shape of his head is influenced by the "wide angle effect", the following extract from the HSCA's Photo Panel report fully explains this concept. The thoroughness of the HSCA's in depth analysis is the reason why wannabe's like "photo expert" Thompson completely deferred to this superior examination.





Here is CE133B taken directly from the original negative and thus shows the full frame and CE133A which similarly shows the full frame, and the difference of the placement within these frames of Oswald's head is easily seen. So the simple layman's explanation of the above information is compositing Oswald's head is magnitudes of complexity more difficult than simply cut and pasting, and requires a virtually impossible set of circumstances to align.



And lastly, when questioned about Neely street, Oswald "even denied living there"! I wonder why? LOL.

Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the Neely Street address and he denied that address. He denied having a picture made over there and he even denied living there. I told him he had people who visited him over there and he said they were just wrong about visiting.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Oh, really?! The differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?! Really?! Well, could you explain, then, why the PEP experts could only detect them with computer-aid and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements? You might want to read the PEP report and Kirk and McCamy's testimony before you repeat this howler again.

Readers should keep in mind that you still have not repudiated your hilarious claim that the PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos. How could that be when the PEP admitted that their photogrammetric measurements showed the camera only moved "SLIGHTLY to the left" and "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?

Are you blind? The following comparison shows the massive amounts of parallax movement between CE133A and CE133B which just happens to be very visible to the naked eye, do you even know what parallax means?



Look carefully at this HSCA Exhibit, the scale on the side shows distances in millimetres and considering the measurements the HSCA used, the photo here appears to be slightly smaller than the photo used for the parallax distances and taking into account the fact that the HSCA photo experts further sub divided a millimetre by a factor of ten, then by necessity the usage of a microscope would be the only way to see such tiny differences in a tiny photo but getting to the point, how you extrapolate this to infer that the overall distances are invisible to the human eye is self serving nonsense. The above GIF comparison showing clear parallax is self explanatory.



BTW, where does your theory go? The HSCA defined that the backyard photos were taken from different locations and gave a very vague camera movement of ""SLIGHTLY to the left" and "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures", which doesn't exactly help your allegation of fakery because someone standing in the one position would produce consecutive photographs which would clearly satisfy that criteria. How in your own words would you describe an alternate conspiratorial narrative that fits your belief system and don't forget that the HSCA ruled out a tripod, that there was an obvious learning process between shots and the length of time between photos can be timed by the movement of shadows, all of which just happens to fit the known sequence of events.

JohnM