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

[Michael T. Griffith]

No, nobody has yet duplicated the variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle photos. Anyone who says otherwise is either knowingly peddling false information or doesn't know what they're talking about. The HSCA PEP made the most sophisticated attempt to duplicate the shadows but failed to do so, as I document in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view

Physicist Philip Stahl, an author of books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found they must have been tampered with:

Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original.  However,  +30%  shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same. (http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html)

Stahl conducted the analysis after reading Hany Farid’s study, which supposedly proved that the backyard photos are authentic. Stahl reviewed Farid’s study and concluded it was severely flawed, as he discusses in the above-mentioned article and in his article “Hany Farid’s Pixelated Illusions”:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked. Charnin holds a BA in mathematics from Queens College, an MS in applied mathematics from Adelphi University, and an MS in operations research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York. I recommend Charnin’s article “Mathematical Proof that the Oswald Backyard Photos Were Faked”:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/jfk-mathematical-proof-that-the-oswald-backyard-photos-were-faked/

I would also recommend Charnin’s 2014 book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.

And I would bet all of my IRAs that no WC apologist will ever do a reenactment to try to duplicate the incredibly small differences in the distances between the background objects that the HSCA PEP found in two of the backyard photos. There is no way on this planet that a cheap topside-view-finder, lever-activated camera that was allegedly handed back and forth between exposures and supposedly used by an amateur who had rarely taken photos before could have produced photos that contained such amazingly small differences in the distances between background objects, differences so small that the PEP had to use computer analysis and microscopes to detect them.

And, mind you, the HSCA PEP did not even try to establish the degree of change in the camera's angular position between exposures, hinting at the preposterous implication that the camera's angular position did not change in the slightest degree between exposures. The PEP only measured for horizontal and vertical camera movement, and only between 133-A and 133-B, suspiciously ignoring 133-C.