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

[Michael T. Griffith]

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. 32.1mm divided by 15.2mm is 2.11, not 2.11mm.

Okay, but let's back up and reestablish some basic facts so we don't miss the forest for the trees: Surely you will agree that the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are indisputably measurements, and that the difference between them is only 1.7 mm, or only 0.06 inches, or 3/50ths of an inch, right?

The PEP said these numbers were the measurements of "the vertical distance from the center of the . . . gate bolt or latch to the bottom edge of the screen of the screen door in the background" of 133-A and 133-B (6 HSCA 178), and that the measurements were made to calculate "vertical parallax." So clearly the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are indisputably the measurements of the vertical distances between the named background objects in 133-A and 133-B, before the scaling distances were factored, right?

And there can be no doubt that the scaling distance for 133-A was found to be 15.5 mm, and that the scaling distance for 133-B was found to be 15.2 mm, right?

Alright, so we're back to the same question I've been trying to get you to answer for days now: Again, all these numbers were introduced as "the results" of the measurements of the vertical distances between the gate bolt and the screen in the backgrounds, and the PEP specified these measurements were done to calculate vertical parallax: "Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance" from the gate bolt to the bottom edge of the screen door "in the background" (6 HSCA 178).

Ok, so where are the measurements for the vertical parallax after the scaling distances were applied? If the answer is that the PEP simply failed to provide them, let's put that on the table.

If the answer is that the scaling distances were applied merely in order to ratio the measurements, that the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are the vertical parallax numbers, that 2.11 and 1.96 are ratios, then what does it say about the "very small" vertical camera movement if that movement was determined by these ratios?

This, then, would explain the PEP's conclusion that the camera moved only "slightly" downward between exposures, even though it was supposedly handed back and forth twice between exposures, and even though Oswald would have to put down the rifle and newspapers, take the camera, forward the film, hand the camera back to Marina, pick up the rifle and newspapers, and then resume posing. No one can really believe that photos taken in this manner would have only microscopic differences in the distances between background objects.

McCamy told the HSCA that the measured distances between background objects in the photos were "ratioed against another dimension here" so that "mere scale wouldn't change these things" (2 HSCA 416). Based on this, said McCamy, "we find that there has been some vertical movement also, very small, but it is there" (2 HSCA 416). They had to use computers and high magnification/microscopes to determine the distances between background objects and to determine the degree of camera movement.

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

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.

What? This is an evasive circular argument. It also misses the main point. The PEP didn't need a survey of the backyard to determine the horizontal parallax. Why would they have needed a survey to determine the vertical parallax? Furthermore, as I noted in my reply, the PEP said they were able to establish the existence of vertical parallax based on their finding that the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of the upper horizontal part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B.

The main point is that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was handed back and forth twice between exposures would show far greater differences in the distances between background objects and would exhibit much more horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.

Finally, I again note the damning fact that the PEP did not publish any measurements to determine if the camera moved angularly in any direction, i.e., if there was any pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position between exposures. The PEP’s silence on this issue implies the wildly unlikely assumption that there was no pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position after being handed back and forth twice. This would have required the camera to be held perfectly horizontally and perfectly vertically for each picture, with no tilt in any direction whatsoever between exposures.

Only photos taken by a professional photographer using a high-quality camera and a sturdy tripod will not contain indications of any angular camera movement between exposures, and only photos taken in this manner will contain only tiny differences in the distances between background objects.

[Tommy Shanks]

Let's try again. Maybe Michael Griffith would care to explain why and how Lee Oswald gave George DeMohrenschildt a signed copy of one of the backyard photographs in 1963, if the photos themselves are the obvious forgeries Griffith insists.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Let's try again. Maybe Michael Griffith would care to explain why and how Lee Oswald gave George DeMohrenschildt a signed copy of one of the backyard photographs in 1963, if the photos themselves are the obvious forgeries Griffith insists.

I've answered the argument several times, and this argument has been addressed in numerous books going back to the 1980s. Yet, here you are repeating it as if it is some kind of credible argument. This is another perfect example of the merry-go-around that lone-gunman theorists operate here. You guys just keep repeating debunked arguments over and over and over again, and you either aren't aware of the answers to them or you choose to ignore them.

The picture suspiciously just turned up in the DeMohrenschildts' belongings. Some family members voiced the suspicion that the photo was planted among their belongings. No one ever claimed that Oswald handed the photo to George DeM or to anyone else in the family. The small amount of handwriting on the back of the photo could have been easily forged, and the date is written in a format that Oswald never, ever, ever used.

Now, let's try again: How about if you explain how a cheap, top-view, side-lever-activated handheld camera that was allegedly handed back and forth twice between exposures could have produced photos (1) that have such tiny differences in the distances between background objects that they could only be measured photogrammetrically with the aid of computers and microscopes, (2) that show the horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures was "slight" and "very small," and (3) that allegedly show there was not the slightest tilt/angular movement in the camera's position (i.e., no yaw, pitch, or roll whatsoever) between exposures?

And, how about you find me a single photo with a watermark whose edge forms a virtually straight line across the chin? I ask because the PEP claimed that the obvious retouching line across the backyard figure's chin is really just the edge of a watermark, a nonsensical proposition that was rejected by every photographic expert I interviewed. The experts I interviewed had over 100 years of combined experience in photography, and every one of them said they had never seen a watermark with an edge that formed a nearly straight line.

Speaking of the backyard figure's chin, how about you explain why the PEP omitted the Penrose measurements for the chin, even though the chin had long been identified as a key indicator of forgery?

And, of course, how about you explain why no one has yet been able to duplicate the impossible variant shadows seen in the backyard photos? Do you know what happened when the PEP tried to duplicate just the variant nose shadow with a plastic model of a head? They had to tilt and rotate the model's head so the face was no longer looking at the camera, and then they had to shift the camera's position just to reacquire a frontal view of the face. When Congressman Fithian called McCamy on this unrealistic manipulation, PEP member McCamy conceded that "a number of assumptions" would be necessary to "interpret the Oswald photograph" from the reenactment. Uh, yeah, that's putting it mildly.

Have you even read my article yet?

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view

[Tommy Shanks]

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

This quote from Michael Griffith should tell you everything you need to know. In actual fact, Livingstone was complicit in selling stolen JFK autopsy photos to tabloids and in his books, printing the most outlandish and unsupported conspiracy theories in said books and at one point even resorted to quoting members of a pre-Internet JFK assassination forum on the network Prodigy as if they somehow lent credence to his lunatic ramblings.