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

[Michael T. Griffith]

The reply that I answer below was posted on August 13 in Bill Brown's thread on the Walker shooting. I didn't notice the reply until this morning when I was going back through the thread. The reply was written by John Mytton. He was responding to my point that the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel's (PEP's) parallax measurements found incredibly tiny differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, and that these microscopic differences prove the photos could not have been taken in the way the official story says they were taken, i.e., with Marina and Lee handing the camera back and forth twice so Lee could forward the film for her.

I normally don't go out of my way to highlight another person's blunder, but Mytton's blunder is so astonishing and discrediting that I decided to post my response to his reply in a new thread on the backyard photos and the HSCA PEP. I would point out, however, that I do not name Mytton in the thread title. I never single out anyone in a thread title, no matter how obnoxious or wrong they are.

Like your many Zapruder failures, here again, you haven't got a clue!

Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.

Oh, boy! I mean, oh my goodness. As we will see in a moment, you are the one who clearly does not understand the numbers.

What is beyond laughable is that you would deny that the parallax differences are extremely tiny.  Again, even the HSCA PEP admitted they are "very small," but you erroneously claim they are "massive" and "vast."

BTW, the HSCA PEP also acknowledged that the "very small" differences in the distances between background objects proved that the camera changed position only "slightly" between photos, a telling admission given the way the photos were supposedly taken. The odds that the camera would return to virtually the same position--in angle, distance, tilt--after being handed back and forth twice are astronomically remote, to the point of being zero for all intents and purposes.

"Tiny photos"? Huh? The HSCA PEP admitted that 133-A DeM, which is much clearer than 133-A, was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” because of its higher resolution (6 HSCA 148). The PEP was able to make large high-quality prints with 133-A DeM. At the Sixth-Floor Museum and in the Dallas Police Department Collection, one of the prints is 14 x 11 inches, while others are 5 x 4 inches. The 14 x 11 print is quite clear and high in quality.   



LOL! This has to rank as one of your all-time blunders. You cite the vertical gate-bolt-to-screen measurements for 133-A and 133-B and then act like that's the end of the story. You apparently missed the whole point of the measurements. How in the world did you miss the fact that the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical gate-bolt-to-screen measurements is only 0.15 mm? That's 2.11 mm in 133-B vs. 1.96 mm in 133-A, which gives us the amazingly tiny difference of 0.15 mm. Did they not teach you basic subtraction in school?

Do you know how tiny 0.15 mm is? Huh? 0.15 mm is only 0.005905512 inches, or 1/128th of an inch. By any standard, that is a microscopic difference.

The PEP provided 133-A and 133-B vertical gate-bolt-to-screen measurements to enable us to see the difference between them, but you clearly did not grasp this and thus failed to do basic subtraction; instead, you assumed you were somehow proving something just by citing the measurements without addressing the microscopic difference between them. I have rarely seen such an astonishing blunder in an online discussion.

Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo. And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos. I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!

"Haha" indeed! Your goofy graphic is based on your stunning failure to do basic subtraction with the 133-A and 133-B vertical gate-bolt-to-screen measurements. It is just comical that you would cite those measurements and then fail to compare them, which was the whole point of the measurements.

So 0.15 mm/0.005905512 inches is not microscopic? 0.0059 inches, or 1/128th of an inch, is so tiny that you can't even measure it on an engineer scale ruler. You can't even see such a tiny distance with the naked eye but need a microscope or a high-powered magnifying glass to see it.

If the backyard photos had been taken the way the official story says they were taken, there would be far greater differences in the distances between background objects. Taking three photos with such tiny differences in background-object distances would be difficult for professional photographer with a modern digital handheld camera with a touch-screen button. It would have been impossible to do this with a cheap Imperial Reflex 620 camera handed back and forth twice between three exposures.

BTW on your Backyard photo fraud page you seem to rely on Jack White who believes in Moon Landing and 9/11 fakery, which goes a long way to explain your belief system. JohnM

You know this is false. I approvingly cite only one of Jack White's arguments, and that's on how frame edge markings could have been produced, and several professional photographers I interviewed confirmed that on this point White was correct. Mr. Mee also said White was correct on this point. And, I only cite White's video once or twice merely to reference photos that he presents in the video. I spend far more time citing British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson, former NSA photographic expert Brian Mee, and the HSCA PEP's parallax and Penrose measurements.

And, it bears repeating that the percentage of people who believe in 9/11 fakery is very close to the percentage of people who believe in your version of the JFK shooting. You might want to keep that in mind.

[Tim Nickerson]

And, it bears repeating that the percentage of people who believe in 9/11 fakery is very close to the percentage of people who believe in your version of the JFK shooting. You might want to keep that in mind.

Half of Americans Believe in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[John Mytton]

Griffith, since you intentionally failed to repost my image comparison of what the HSCA was actually referring to(naughty naughty), I'll have to do it and thus prove that your "microscopic differences" was always referring to measurements taken from photos and as even Blind man Freddy can see, the relative real world difference in the gate latch to rear screen door is not and was never "microscopic". Oops!

Like your many Zapruder failures, here again, you haven't got a clue!

Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.



Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.

I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!



BTW on your Backyard photo fraud page you seem to rely on Jack White who believes in Moon Landing and 9/11 fakery, which goes a long way to explain your belief system.

JohnM

And as an added bonus, here's a refutation of your Oswald Chin stupidity.

Oswald's chin in the backyard photos is being sculpted by the shadow from the overhead lighting source, and this effect can be seen being duplicated in real time in the hallways of the Dallas Police Department. And to suggest that Oswald's chin was replaced with someone else's chin is just amateurish and laughable.



Take note of the similarities of the shadows in Oswald's eye sockets and under his nose. And then contemplate the practically impossible difficulties of locating three slightly varying headshots of Oswald with the correct sun angles and shadows that satisfy the complicated criteria of the lighting in the backyard of Neely street.



JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

Griffith, since you intentionally failed to repost my image comparison of what the HSCA was actually referring to(naughty naughty), I'll have to do it and thus prove that your "microscopic differences" was always referring to measurements taken from photos and as even Blind man Freddy can see, the relative real world difference in the gate latch to rear screen door is not and was never "microscopic". Oops!

And as an added bonus, here's a refutation of your Oswald Chin stupidity.

Oswald's chin in the backyard photos is being sculpted by the shadow from the overhead lighting source, and this effect can be seen being duplicated in real time in the hallways of the Dallas Police Department. And to suggest that Oswald's chin was replaced with someone else's chin is just amateurish and laughable.



Take note of the similarities of the shadows in Oswald's eye sockets and under his nose. And then contemplate the practically impossible difficulties of locating three slightly varying headshots of Oswald with the correct sun angles and shadows that satisfy the complicated criteria of the lighting in the backyard of Neely street.

"microscopic differences" was always referring to measurements taken from photos

What are the odds that he'll understand what you are referring to? Or that if he does clue in to it, he'll admit that he was wrong?

[John Mytton]

What are the odds that he'll understand what you are referring to? Or that if he does clue in to it, he'll admit that he was wrong?

What are the odds that he'll understand what you are referring to?

Griffith isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and after destroying his fakery nonsense, he just goes away and then comes back with the same refuted nonsense again, again and again. -sigh-

Or that if he does clue in to it, he'll admit that he was wrong?

Much like DiEugenio, Griffith has a vested interest in perpetuating his conspiracy myth and as money is his driving force, truth be damned!




JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

Griffith isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and after destroying his fakery nonsense, he just goes away and then comes back with the same refuted nonsense again, again and again. -sigh-

Much like DiEugenio, Griffith has a vested interest in perpetuating his conspiracy myth and as money is his driving force, truth be damned!




JohnM

I just looked at the book on Amazon. For $62, you can get that book, DiEugenio et al's Chokeholds, and one other conspiracy peddling book. I read Chokeholds. I chose not to leave a review or rating of it on Amazon. It's deserves a one star rating though. I critiqued one or two chapters of it on X.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Griffith, since you intentionally failed to repost my image comparison of what the HSCA was actually referring to(naughty naughty), I'll have to do it and thus prove that your "microscopic differences" was always referring to measurements taken from photos and as even Blind man Freddy can see, the relative real world difference in the gate latch to rear screen door is not and was never "microscopic". Oops!

IOW, never mind the actual measurements of the differences! No, ignore those and rely on your goofy "image comparison"! Nah, that's okay. I'll take the actual measurements over your absurd, dishonest image.

And never mind that you failed to do basic subtraction to get the difference between the gate-bolt-to-screen measurements.

BTW, the horizontal parallax measurements are equally damning. Once again, the differences had to be expressed in millimeters:

a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 mm
a-upper: 1.1 mm

b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm

As you can see, the largest difference was only 1.0 mm (a-upper vs. b-upper), which equals 0.039 inches. 0.039 inches as a fraction is 39/1000th of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of an inch is 1.59 mm, 58% larger than 39/1000th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.

And as an added bonus, here's a refutation of your Oswald Chin stupidity.

You know, you're not really in a position to be accusing anyone of stupidity, given that you made the astonishing blunder of failing to do basic subtraction to realize the microscopic difference between the gate-bolt-to-screen measurements.

Oswald's chin in the backyard photos is being sculpted by the shadow from the overhead lighting source, and this effect can be seen being duplicated in real time in the hallways of the Dallas Police Department. And to suggest that Oswald's chin was replaced with someone else's chin is just amateurish and laughable. JohnM

Oh, "laughable," huh? That's odd, because former Scotland Yard photographic expert Malcolm Thompson was convinced that the backyard figure's chin is different than Oswald's chin. Your cherry-picked photos ignore other photos that show an obvious difference in the chins.

[Tommy Shanks]

There's no point arguing with Griffith. He believes every long-debunked conspiracy theory and appears immune to logic except when calling out the lies of Fletcher Prouty. Never mind that Marina admitted to taking the backyard photos, that Oswald gave a copy of one of them to George DeMohrenschildt, etc.. In conspiracy land, why should any of that matter?