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

[Mitch Todd]

I should add that you, John Mytton, have compounded your blunder because you apparently have not realized that the parallax measurements were already adjusted for scale to take into account the differences in magnification, which is why the scaling distances were part of the calculations to determine the differences in distance between objects. We know this because the HSCA PEP said this in fairly plain English in their report:

To establish scale, that is to take into account differences in
magnification, these measurements were related to the distance
from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next
measured in a horizontal direction This scaling distance was
measured on the two center pickets of the four that appear to
constitute the gate at the level of the lower edge of the top
horizontal member. (6 H 178-179)

Moreover, we see in the PEP's calculations for the gate-bolt-to-screen distances that each measured distance was divided by the scaling distance. Let's see the calculations as they appear in the HSCA PEP's report:

133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)

So the difference in the 133-A and 133-B gate-bolt-to-screen distances, with the scaling distance already factored in, is 0.15 mm, a microscopic distance, a distance that cannot be discerned or measured with the naked eye. Humm, could this be why the PEP said they found "VERY SMALL" differences in the distances between background objects in the photos?

Furthermore, I mention in my article, "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," that the calculations that determined the difference in the 133-A and 133-B gate-bolt-to-screen distances included adjustment for scaling distance:

Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm
(1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B) (p. 10)

And right below the above statement, I then quote the calculations as they appear in the HSCA PEP's report. But somehow you missed this. Of course, I suspect you either didn't my article or only briefly skimmed over it. That seems to be the norm for you folks.

Even though your blunder has been exposed beyond any rational denial, I suspect you will not admit your error. But, perhaps, just perhaps, you will stop making the ridiculous claim that there are "massive" differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos.

Where are you getting these 1.96mm and 2.11mm measurements from? It's not from the PEP report. Let me show you why. Here's the PEP report excerpt you use:

133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)

30.4mm/15.5mm = 1.96. Notice that the result is a ratio, not a measurement, as the units in the denominator cancel out the units in the numerator. The same is true for 32.1mm/15.2mm = 2.11

[Tom Graves]

Where are you getting these 1.96mm and 2.11mm measurements from? It's not from the PEP report. Let me show you why. Here's the PEP report excerpt you use:

133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)

30.4mm/15.5mm = 1.96. Notice that the result is a ratio, not a measurement, as the units in the denominator cancel out the units in the numerator. The same is true for 32.1mm/15.2mm = 2.11

Badda-Bing Badda-Boom.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Where are you getting these 1.96mm and 2.11mm measurements from? It's not from the PEP report. Let me show you why. Here's the PEP report excerpt you use:

133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)

30.4mm/15.5mm = 1.96. Notice that the result is a ratio, not a measurement, as the units in the denominator cancel out the units in the numerator. The same is true for 32.1mm/15.2mm = 2.11

Holy cow and LOL! Says the guy who repeatedly refused to acknowledge Dr. DiMaio's plain English that FMJ bullets don't fragment into dozens of tiny fragments and that x-rays that show numerous small fragments rule out FMJ ammo. It seems you are determined to provide another display of refusing to admit the obvious meaning of plain English (and even math).

If you would have bothered to read the paragraph in the PEP report that immediately precedes the measurements, which is the paragraph that introduces those measurements, you would have seen that they are not ratios but are measured vertical distances between the gate bolt and the screen in the backgrounds to determine the vertical parallax, and that the differences were adjusted for the scaling distance to account for the variations in magnification. Let's read that paragraph, shall we?

Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance
from the center of the dark horizontal object, which looks like it
might be a gate bolt or latch, to the bottom edge of the screen
of the screen door in the background. To establish scale, that is
to take into account differences in magnification, these measurements
were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the
left edge of the next, measured in a horizontal direction. This scaling
distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four that
appear to constitute the gate at the level of the lower edge of the
top horizontal member. The results are as follows: (6 HSCA 178-179)

And then come the measurements of the gate-bolt-to-screen distances in 133-A and 133-B. The 133-A distance is 1.96 mm. The 133-B distance is 2.11 mm. 2.11 minus 1.96 equals the vertical parallax of 0.15 mm.

And then, immediately after the measurements, in the paragraph that follows the measurements, we read that therefore "the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures," i.e., between 133-A and 133-B. This is why PEP member McCamy acknowledged that the difference between the vertical distances in the backgrounds was "very small," and this is why the PEP said the camera moved only "slightly" downward between these two exposures, 133-A and 133-B.

Can you guys ever admit anything? I mean, this is math. They determined the vertical parallax, the difference between the vertical position of the measured objects in the two backgrounds, by taking the raw vertical measurements and factoring in the scaling distance. And that difference was extremely tiny, which is why the PEP said the vertical difference was "very small" and that the camera moved only "slightly" downward between 133-A and 133-B.

But you guys can't even admit the reality of these basic math calculations and findings because you realize the implications of those calculations and findings, and you are so emotionally invested in believing the backyard photos are authentic that you even deny mathematical reality.

I mean, you could always claim that Marina Oswald simply got unbelievably lucky and just happened to achieve the cosmically amazing feat of returning the camera to virtually the exact same vertical position twice in a row after handing the camera back and forth to Lee so he could forward the film, and that Lee amazingly managed to return to the same spot twice in a row after putting down the rifle and the newspapers, taking the camera from Marina, forwarding the film, handing the camera back to Marina, picking up the rifle and newspapers again, and resuming his pose! You bet! Happens all the time! Well, or at least, once every million years, and this just happened to be that time!

But I guess you realize that such a claim is implausible in the extreme.