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

[Michael T. Griffith]

How do you know what photos Livingstone showed her? This is a man who published and profited from stolen JFK autopsy photos for years. Not surprising that he's the kind of person you have to rely on as part of your silly alteration theories.

Harrison Livingstone was one of the most serious, thorough researchers in the research community.

Oh, he "profited" from "stolen" JFK autopsy photos for years?! Uh-huh, you mean he made available to the public photos that the government had intended to keep suppressing for decades.

We're not talking about "alteration theories." The fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is a scientific fact established through multiple, independent optical-density measurements of the x-rays. One scientist, Dr. Mantik (who is both a radiation oncologist and a physicist), has even duplicated the process that was used to alter the x-rays.

We also know for an absolute fact that the JFK autopsy brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain. They show a brain with only 1-2 ounces of missing tissue, yet the lateral skull x-rays alone show at least 2/3 of the right brain missing, and we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including two of the trailing patrolmen, the windshield of the follow-up car, and the clothing of one of the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car. Even Humes admitted to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away.

The last time we discussed Dr. Mantik's research, you resorted to quoting a chiropractor, "Dr." Chad Zimmerman, who has no qualifications in physics or radiology, whereas Dr. Mantik has worked in radiology as a radiation oncologist for decades (including taking hundreds of optical-density measurements), holds a doctorate in physics, and even taught physics at the University of Michigan.

[Mitch Todd]

You mean you can't. And you know it.

This is revealing: I have merely asked you to cite the paragraph and/or page number where the vertical parallax numbers are given. You deny they are the numbers that immediately follow the clearly introductory paragraph that explains how the vertical parallax was measured and calculated and then says "The results are as follows."

I'm saying, Okay, then if those numbers aren't the vertical parallax numbers, where are they? Did the panel just forget to provide them? Did they withhold them? And your answer is "I don't need to tell you. You're just moving the goal posts."

BTW, do you endorse John Mytton's argument that the differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?

Well, I see at least you're using the word "parallax" correctly now. Anyway, one, the demonstration of parallax does not automatically prove the backgrounds are not the same. Two, having said this, my position does not require that the backgrounds are the same, since a tripod-mounted camera could have produced photos that would exhibit only slight camera movement. Three, the horizontal and vertical parallax would be much greater if the photos had been taken by a cheap handheld camera with a lever for a button with the camera being handed back and forth twice to forward the film.

And did you notice that the PEP did not even address the issue of diagonal camera movement? We are left to make the extremely unlikely assumption that the camera never moved even a few millimeters diagonally after being handed back and forth twice.

The core of my original argument is the same argument I've been making for years: that the PEP found extremely tiny differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos and acknowledged that these differences proved the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and downward between exposures, and that the differences in distances and camera movement would be far greater if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged by the official story.

MG: You mean you can't. And you know it. This is revealing: I have merely asked you to cite the paragraph and/or page number where the vertical parallax numbers are given. You deny they are the numbers that immediately follow the clearly introductory paragraph that explains how the vertical parallax was measured and calculated and then says "The results are as follows."

No. I mean we don't need to. Period. You've already done that for us. Your utter lack of even a very basic understanding of the subject under discussion prevents you from seeing this.

To clue you in, the parallax is calculated by subtracting the the bolt-to-screen measurement in one photo from the corresponding measurement in the other. In this case, the parallax measurement is 32.1mm - 30.4mm = 1.7mm. That is, the vertical position of the gate latch WRT the screen behind it in the background changes 1.7mm between the two photos.  The calculations involving the 15.5mm and 15.2mm "scaling distances" are only there to show that the difference in the bolt-to-screen measurements is not due to simple enlargement of the background image.

You will, no doubt complain that 1.7mm is a small measurement. But this is on a photograph that is much smaller than the scene represented within it. If CE133A or B were enlarged to life size, the apparent delta distance along the film plane would be something like 10x what the PEP measured, ie 17mm or 2/3".


MG: Well, I see at least you're using the word "parallax" correctly now.

I haven't used the word incorrectly at all. You simply don't understand what it really is or how it works. Which doesn't stop you from talking loudly about it so that the rest of the world knows you don't understand what you're talking about. At least, it's fair warning for the rest of us.


MG: And did you notice that the PEP did not even address the issue of diagonal camera movement?

They generated measurements for both horizontal and vertical parallax. Having that data along both axes means that they also measured the diagonal parallax, since diagonal changes can be derived from the x and y measurements via judicious use of the Pythagorean Theorem.
 

MG: The core of my original argument is the same argument I've been making for years: that the PEP found extremely tiny differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos and acknowledged that these differences proved the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and downward between exposures, and that the differences in distances and camera movement would be far greater if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged by the official story.

Given the way the photos were supposed to have been taken, any changes in relative position would be expected to be quite small.  The only people who have a problem with it are the zealously ignorant folks (a set you appear to be a member of) who neither see clearly, think carefully, nor know much about what they're talking about.  In reality, the "core of your argument" is nothing more than an empty, assertion.

[Mitch Todd]

30.4 mm divided by 15.5 mm is 1.96 mm (133-A), and 32.1 mm divided by 15.2 mm is 2.11 mm (133-B). If these are the final b/a ratio for the two photos, or if 2.11 and 1.96 constitute the two numbers in the b/a ratio (2.11/1.96), then the difference is only 0.15. 0.15 mm is only 0.0059 inches, or 59/10000ths of an inch. This would explain why the PEP said the numbers in question proved that the camera moved only "slightly" downward between exposures, that the change in the camera's vertical position was "very small."

[...]

If we read further in the PEP report, we learn that the PEP experts were not certain about the degree of vertical camera movement based only on the vertical measurements.
[...]

Oh, here we go again.

MG: 30.4 mm divided by 15.5 mm is 1.96 mm (133-A), and 32.1 mm divided by 15.2 mm is 2.11 mm (133-B)

No! No! No! No!!! You don't even know Jr High arithmetic.

30.4mm divided by 15.5mm is 1.96, not 1.96mm. Likewise, 32.1mm divided by 15.2mm is 2.11, not 2.11mm.


MG: the PEP experts were not certain about the degree of vertical camera movement based only on the vertical measurement

To do so would require a very precise survey of the backyard. They didn't have that, and the HSCA probably wasn't going to pay for it. The PEP already showed what they needed to when they demonstrated the parallax in the background of CE133a compared to CE133b.

[John Mytton]

Oh, here we go again.

MG: 30.4 mm divided by 15.5 mm is 1.96 mm (133-A), and 32.1 mm divided by 15.2 mm is 2.11 mm (133-B)

No! No! No! No!!! You don't even know Jr High arithmetic.

30.4mm divided by 15.5mm is 1.96, not 1.96mm. Likewise, 32.1mm divided by 15.2mm is 2.11, not 2.11mm.

 

I made a simple example;

5mm goes into 10mm twice.



And 10mm divided into 5 parts means each part equals 2mm.



Griffith applies this level of self-serving logic to every one of his conspiracy theories and, because he is so full of himself, he refuses to accept that his analysis is constantly deeply flawed.

JohnM