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.

[Mitch Todd]

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.

On CE133A the PEP's measurements were 30.4mm (gate latch) and 15.5mm ("dark horizontal object"). The corresponding measurements on CE133B were and 32.1mm and 15.2mm. The PEP then divided the gate latch measurement by the DHO measurement for each photo. Which results in the following mathematics:

                         30.4mm
CE133A:            -----------   =   1.96
                         15.5mm


                          32.1mm
CE133B:            -----------   =   2.11
                          15.2mm

Again, note that the units cancel out in the division: millimeters divided by millimeters always equals one, per basic mathematics. So 1.96 and 2.11 are both unitless ratios, ipso fact.

You would really avoid wasting everyone's time if you bothered to actually understand what you talk about. Especially the basic stuff. At least you could help yourself out by not doubling down when you bungle a simple mathematical expression. You'd also help yourself out even more by making an utter fool out of yourself by icing the cake by making idiotic statements like "the reality of these basic math calculations" when you don't actually understand the "basic math calculations" even after it's been pointed out to you that you've bungled the simple math underlying them.

[Michael T. Griffith]

On CE133A the PEP's measurements were 30.4mm (gate latch) and 15.5mm ("dark horizontal object"). The corresponding measurements on CE133B were and 32.1mm and 15.2mm. The PEP then divided the gate latch measurement by the DHO measurement for each photo. Which results in the following mathematics:

          30.4mm
CE133A:            -----------   =  1.96
          15.5mm


          32.1mm
CE133B:       -----------  =  2.11
          15.2mm

Again, note that the units cancel out in the division: millimeters divided by millimeters always equals one, per basic mathematics. So 1.96 and 2.11 are both unitless ratios, ipso fact.

You would really avoid wasting everyone's time if you bothered to actually understand what you talk about. Especially the basic stuff. At least you could help yourself out by not doubling down when you bungle a simple mathematical expression. You'd also help yourself out even more by making an utter fool out of yourself by icing the cake by making idiotic statements like "the reality of these basic math calculations" when you don't actually understand the "basic math calculations" even after it's been pointed out to you that you've bungled the simple math underlying them.

Oh my goodness. I have never seen anyone try to bluff their way like you're doing here. Your statements seem to be deliberately misleading, unless you honestly do not understand plain English. I notice you have simply ignored the PEP paragraph that introduces what they call the measurements that determined the vertical parallax. This is a repeat of your stunning refusal to acknowledge Dr. DiMaio's plain English about the behavior of FMJ bullets.

Do you know what "vertical parallax" means? If the PEP were just introducing ratios, where is the vertical parallax? IOW, where is the difference between the 133-A and the 133-B "MEASUREMENTS" (the PEP's term) if it's not in the calculation that follows the paragraph? Where is it? Huh?

Vertical parallax is "the vertical difference between corresponding points in two images." It is not a ratio: it is a measurement that is reached after factoring the scaling distance to account for any differences in magnification.

Let's read the PEP paragraph that introduces the vertical measurements again:

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.

Are we clear so far? They calculated the vertical parallax by measuring the vertical distance from the gate bolt to the bottom edge of the screen door. That is not a "ratio." That is a measurement, which is why they said they "MEASURED" the vertical distance to calculate the vertical parallax. You don't seem to understand what "parallax" means.

Let's continue as they explain that the scaling distance was considered to take into account the differences in magnification, so that the "MEASUREMENTS" were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next:

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)

"The results" for what? For the vertical parallax, i.e., the differences in the vertical distances between the measured objects in 133-A and 133-B. Let's read those results again, and notice that they give the raw measurements factored by the scaling distance and then state what that equals for each photo:

133A: gate bolt to screen = 30.4 mm. scaling dist. = 15.5 mm
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 177-180)

The vertical parallax is 0.15 because the measured distances with the scaling distances factored in are 1.96 for 133-A and 2.11 for 133-B, and 2.11 minus 1.96 is 0.15. Vertical parallax is not a ratio: it is a measurement.

Not a blessed word about ratios in the PEP paragraph that introduces the calculations that determined the vertical parallax. They were talking about how they determined the vertical parallax. They factored in the scaling distance when calculating the measurements in order to determine the vertical parallax.

In order to determine the vertical parallax between corresponding points in two photos, you have to account for any differences in magnification. You do that just as the PEP: you pick other points and measure them horizontally.

If you answer nothing else, just answer two questions

1. Why do you suppose that the PEP said the vertical differences were "VERY SMALL" and that they showed that the camera moved only "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?

2. If the PEP were just introducing ratios, where is the vertical parallax stated? IOW, where is the vertical difference between the 133-A and the 133-B "MEASUREMENTS," if it's not in the calculations directly below the paragraph in question?

[Mitch Todd]

Oh my goodness. I have never seen anyone try to bluff their way like you're doing here. Your statements seem to be deliberately misleading, unless you honestly do not understand plain English. I notice you have simply ignored the PEP paragraph that introduces what they call the measurements that determined the vertical parallax. This is a repeat of your stunning refusal to acknowledge Dr. DiMaio's plain English about the behavior of FMJ bullets.

Do you know what "vertical parallax" means? If the PEP were just introducing ratios, where is the vertical parallax? IOW, where is the difference between the 133-A and the 133-B "MEASUREMENTS" (the PEP's term) if it's not in the calculation that follows the paragraph? Where is it? Huh?

Vertical parallax is "the vertical difference between corresponding points in two images." It is not a ratio: it is a measurement that is reached after factoring the scaling distance to account for any differences in magnification.

Let's read the PEP paragraph that introduces the vertical measurements again:

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.

Are we clear so far? They calculated the vertical parallax by measuring the vertical distance from the gate bolt to the bottom edge of the screen door. That is not a "ratio." That is a measurement, which is why they said they "MEASURED" the vertical distance to calculate the vertical parallax. You don't seem to understand what "parallax" means.

Let's continue as they explain that the scaling distance was considered to take into account the differences in magnification, so that the "MEASUREMENTS" were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next:

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)

"The results" for what? For the vertical parallax, i.e., the differences in the vertical distances between the measured objects in 133-A and 133-B. Let's read those results again, and notice that they give the raw measurements factored by the scaling distance and then state what that equals for each photo:

133A: gate bolt to screen = 30.4 mm. scaling dist. = 15.5 mm
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 177-180)

The vertical parallax is 0.15 because the measured distances with the scaling distances factored in are 1.96 for 133-A and 2.11 for 133-B, and 2.11 minus 1.96 is 0.15. Vertical parallax is not a ratio: it is a measurement.

Not a blessed word about ratios in the PEP paragraph that introduces the calculations that determined the vertical parallax. They were talking about how they determined the vertical parallax. They factored in the scaling distance when calculating the measurements in order to determine the vertical parallax.

In order to determine the vertical parallax between corresponding points in two photos, you have to account for any differences in magnification. You do that just as the PEP: you pick other points and measure them horizontally.

If you answer nothing else, just answer two questions

1. Why do you suppose that the PEP said the vertical differences were "VERY SMALL" and that they showed that the camera moved only "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?

2. If the PEP were just introducing ratios, where is the vertical parallax stated? IOW, where is the vertical difference between the 133-A and the 133-B "MEASUREMENTS," if it's not in the calculations directly below the paragraph in question?

By what fiat have the Gods of Stupidity struck you senseless?! You quote the PEPs calculations that show that 1.96 and 2.11 are unitless ratios and not measurements or distances. In case you forgot, or maybe just have no idea what a ratio is, these are the ratio calculations that you've already quoted:

"133A: gate bolt to screen = 30.4 mm. scaling dist. = 15.5 mm
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 177-180)"

30.4mm/15.5mm and 32.1mm/15.2mm are ratios. Period. The PEP uses the term "scale," which is a synonym of "ratio" in this context. I'm astounded you don't understand this. And, since the units cancel themselves out in the division, the results, 1.96 and 2.11, are unitless numbers and not distances. also, the difference of these two unitless numbers, 0.15, is also unitless. Period. You fail to grasp even basic mathematics. However, like any number of other fools, you try to compensate by ever-more sturm und drang to cover up the stench of your ignorance, and your stubborn foolishness to confront your own mistakes. The problem is, the rest of us see the whole sorry spectacle for what it is.

[Tom Graves]

By what fiat have the Gods of Stupidity struck you senseless?! You quote the PEPs calculations that show that 1.96 and 2.11 are unitless ratios and not measurements or distances. In case you forgot, or maybe just have no idea what a ratio is, these are the ratio calculations that you've already quoted:

"133A: gate bolt to screen = 30.4 mm. scaling dist. = 15.5 mm
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 177-180)"

30.4mm/15.5mm and 32.1mm/15.2mm are ratios. Period. The PEP uses the term "scale," which is a synonym of "ratio" in this context. I'm astounded you don't understand this. And, since the units cancel themselves out in the division, the results, 1.96 and 2.11, are unitless numbers and not distances. also, the difference of these two unitless numbers, 0.15, is also unitless. Period. You fail to grasp even basic mathematics. However, like any number of other fools, you try to compensate by ever-more sturm und drang to cover up the stench of your ignorance, and your stubborn foolishness to confront your won mistakes. The problem is, the rest of us see the whole sorry spectacle for what it is.

Won mistakes, or own mistakes?

[Mitch Todd]

Won mistakes, or own mistakes?

own, but he definitely won some kind of prize for that performance.