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

[Mitch Todd]

It is also revealing that the PEP did not do any measurements on 133-C to determine if there were any differences in the distances between the background objects in 133-C and those in 133-A and 133-B. They only provided measurements for 133-A and 133-B.

If the PEP did do parallax measurements on 133-C, they did not mention doing them and did not publish them. The odds that the camera would have returned to virtually the same horizontal, vertical, and angular position twice are so fantastically remote as to be effectively zero.

How could the PEP pretend to be proving that the backgrounds in the photos were not the same when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos?

133-C shows the backyard figure in a different pose than his pose in 133-A and 133-B. In 133-C, he is holding the rifle at a different angle and is holding the newspapers in a different position than in the two other photos. 133-C also shows him in a different position in relation to the bush on his left than his position in 133-A and 133-B. All of these changes would surely suggest a change in the camera's angular, horizontal, and vertical position. One would therefore think the PEP would have been anxious to do parallax measurements on 133-C and contrast them with the measurements for 133-A and 133-B--unless, of course, the measurements proved to be problematic and either indicated even smaller camera movement or no camera movement.

The proposition, "A, B, and C are identical" can be disproved by demonstrating that any two items are not identical. That's all they needed to do.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Below are some of the problems with the backyard rifle photos noted by Hershal Womack, a professor of photography at Texas Tech University:

If Lee Harvey Oswald cocked the shutter each time for Marina as she supposedly stated, then how did Oswald's leg stay in the same place relative to the dark area next to his left, photo right knee? Compare in two of the three photos. Measure from the line on the building on the right and measure to different parts of his body and I think you will reach the same conclusion. Note the Roscoe White backyard photo.

Other measurements from a fixed object like the stair post to portions of his body or even the pistol appear to be the same or near so. There's no way you could move and go back to the identical spot and take the same position without drawing the image on the back of the camera.
With this in mind then how did he get taller if neither he nor the camera moved. Maybe the camera was on a tripod and lowered which would make him taller but it would do the same to the post which may be a little taller but the height of Oswald seems out of proportion to that of the post or vice-versa. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view, pp. 13-14)

Mytton's discrediting doubling down on his claims about the differences in the distances between background objects and their implications deserves further comment:

Again, there are no "microscopic" distances.

Yes, there most certainly are. Let us once again look at the table for paragraph 441 regarding the horizontal parallax measurements in the PEP's report (6 HSCA 178). The difference in the lower-level "a" distance between 133-A and 133-B was measured to be just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "a" distance was found to be just 0.1 mm, or 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was found to be just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch.

The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects in the photos, unless they have super-human vision. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of a high-powered magnifying glass or a microscope, just as the PEP did.

Let's continue: The difference in the lower-level "b" distance between 133-A and 133-B was found to be just 0.5 mm, or 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "b" distance was found to be 0.7 mm, or 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.

The parallax as determined from measuring the enlargements of CE133A/B corresponds to a significantly larger distance in the real world.

If this were true, the horizontal and vertical changes in the camera's position would not have been "slight" and "very small." You seem to keep forgetting that the PEP could only determine camera movement by ratioing the parallax measurements, and that those incidents of parallax were so tiny that they were expressed in millimeters and were only detected with the aid of computer analysis and microscopes.

Further, this larger distance is not the actual distance the camera would have moved.

But if the differences in the background-object distances had actually been larger "in the real world," this would have proved the camera's movement was larger "in the real world," a point that the PEP would have loudly trumpeted.

The PEP produced screen-size enlargements of the photos as visual aids for their testimony to the Select Committee. Not once did Kirk and McCamy refer to a difference in background-object distances that could be seen with the naked by the committee members.

This distance [of camera movement] would be expected to be somewhat larger than the parallax.

Huh? Again, the PEP admitted that the changes in the camera's horizontal and vertical position between exposures were "slight" and "very small." Furthermore, the PEP did not even measure for changes in the camera's angular position, implying the impossible scenario that the camera did not tilt in the slightest degree at any angle between exposures.

And please tell me how the PEP could prove that the same background was not used in the backyard photos when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos, especially given the fact that the backyard figure's pose in 133-C is different than his poses in the two other photos. I can't help but suspect that the PEP did measure for parallax in 133-C, realized the measurements and resulting camera movement were problematic, and decided to simply ignore 133-C when it came to parallax and camera movement.

Also, since Marina would have held the camera at about the same height for each exposure, we wouldn't expect to see a lot of vertical parallax anyway.

This is just silly, given the difficulty that the PEP had in detecting any change in the camera's vertical position. They could only find one determination for vertical parallax and had to resort to claiming that vertical parallax was established because the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of a part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B (6 HSCA 179).

Moreover, in her later years, no longer under threat of deportation, Marina stated in a taped interview that she did not take the backyard rifle photos in evidence.

Years earlier, when she was still claiming she'd taken the pictures, she said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos. Humm, no way. The Imperial Reflex 620 had no viewfinder that you could hold up to your eye--it only had a waist-level viewfinder on its top, which required you to hold the camera below the level of your head and to look down into the viewfinder.

As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.

And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.

[Tommy Shanks]

As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.

And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.

Uhh, no... YOU conduct the reenactment. YOU do the measurements. It's not the responsibility of other people to validate your long-debunked blathering about these photos, which have been proven authentic time and time again.

[Michael T. Griffith]

To wrap up my input in this thread, I’ll mention some of the glaring problems with the “discovery” and origin of the backyard rifle photos and of the Imperial Reflex camera that was supposedly used to take the photos. The alleged discovery and origin of these items smell to high heaven of fraud. Consider these facts:

-- The Dallas Police Department (DPD) claimed they found two negatives of the backyard photos in Ruth Paine’s garage, but the DPD only entered one negative into evidence, and the other negative disappeared without explanation. Can you imagine how a police department could “misplace” one of the two most important negatives in the history of crime?

* The backyard photos were not “found” until the day after the assassination. Somehow the multiple waves of DPD officers and FBI agents who searched Ruth Paine’s home hours after the assassination “missed” them.

-- In 1992, Dallas authorities released previously suppressed files on the JFK assassination. Among these files were backyard rifle photos taken in Oswald’s Neely Street backyard. One of the photos shows a DPD detective holding a rifle and newspapers in the same pose seen in 133-C Dees and 133-C Stovall, but those photos were not until 1977. One of the photos shows a white silhouette where the backyard figure is supposed to be and contains signs of manipulation.
On February 9, 1992, the Houston Post reported, "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation." The Post further stated that the manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture. The Post provided a description of the print:

In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear. Instead, there is a white silhouette of a human figure holding an apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette appears to be an example of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an intermediate step in the combining of photographic images. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, Thunder's Mouth Press Edition, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1992, p. xxii)

-- When the DPD backyard rifle photos were released in 1992, the DPD’s explanation was that they were merely the products of an innocent camera test done on 11/29/1963 to help authorities better understand the “Oswald” backyard rifle photos. However, the DPD did not explain how the detective knew to assume the same pose that the backyard figure assumes in 133-C Dees and 133-C Stovall when those photos were not discovered until 1977.

According to the official record, no one knew that the backyard figure had assumed a third pose, a pose different than the ones in 133-A and 133-B, until 1977. So how did the detective know to assume a third pose that was officially unknown until 1977?

-- Robert Hester, a photographer who worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas and who helped process assassination-related film for the Dallas police and the FBI on 11/22, reported in a 1970 interview that he saw an FBI agent with a transparency of one of the backyard pictures on 11/22, which was the day before the police said they "found" the photos. Moreover, one of the backyard photos Hester processed showed no figure in the picture, just like one of the DPD prints that were discovered in 1992. Obviously, Hester could not have known about the DPD print that shows a silhouette instead of the Oswald figure because it was not released until 1992. Thus, his account of a silhouette photo is credible.

-- The Imperial Reflex camera was not “found” until nearly three months after the assassination. The camera was not included in the inventories of Oswald’s possessions seized by the DPD.

-- On February 24, 1964, Oswald’s brother Robert gave the IR camera to law enforcement authorities. Robert claimed that he did not hand over “this cheap camera” sooner “because he had never been asked for it previously” and because “it had never occurred to him that anyone would be interested in the camera.” But federal agents had asked Robert about his brother Lee’s cameras and showed him pictures of cameras on February 16.

Perhaps realizing that Robert Oswald’s story sounded suspicious (assuming it even was his story and not a story that he was coerced into telling), many months after the assassination, the FBI produced a report that claimed that Detective John McCabe of the Irving Police Department saw the IR camera in a gray metal box in Ruth Paine’s garage on 11/23, but that McCabe did not take the camera because he did not think it was important!

Right, so none of the waves of police and federal agents who searched that garage on 11/22 and 11/23 saw the camera, but McCabe saw it, and then ignored it because he did not think it was important.

The gray box in which McCabe belatedly claimed he saw the IR camera on 11/23 had already been itemized by the FBI. The FBI itemization said the box contained 13 books and some random items—no camera was listed. The 11/23 DPD inventory of the gray box likewise did not mention a camera.

Police officers and detectives gave conflicting stories about who found the backyard rifle photos (see Sylvia Meagher’s detailed discussion on this in her famous book Accessories After the Fact, pp. 200-209).

[Mitch Todd]

Below are some of the problems with the backyard rifle photos noted by Hershal Womack, a professor of photography at Texas Tech University:

If Lee Harvey Oswald cocked the shutter each time for Marina as she supposedly stated, then how did Oswald's leg stay in the same place relative to the dark area next to his left, photo right knee? Compare in two of the three photos. Measure from the line on the building on the right and measure to different parts of his body and I think you will reach the same conclusion. Note the Roscoe White backyard photo.

Other measurements from a fixed object like the stair post to portions of his body or even the pistol appear to be the same or near so. There's no way you could move and go back to the identical spot and take the same position without drawing the image on the back of the camera.
With this in mind then how did he get taller if neither he nor the camera moved. Maybe the camera was on a tripod and lowered which would make him taller but it would do the same to the post which may be a little taller but the height of Oswald seems out of proportion to that of the post or vice-versa. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view, pp. 13-14)

Mytton's discrediting doubling down on his claims about the differences in the distances between background objects and their implications deserves further comment:

Yes, there most certainly are. Let us once again look at the table for paragraph 441 regarding the horizontal parallax measurements in the PEP's report (6 HSCA 178). The difference in the lower-level "a" distance between 133-A and 133-B was measured to be just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "a" distance was found to be just 0.1 mm, or 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was found to be just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch.

The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects in the photos, unless they have super-human vision. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of a high-powered magnifying glass or a microscope, just as the PEP did.

Let's continue: The difference in the lower-level "b" distance between 133-A and 133-B was found to be just 0.5 mm, or 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "b" distance was found to be 0.7 mm, or 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.

If this were true, the horizontal and vertical changes in the camera's position would not have been "slight" and "very small." You seem to keep forgetting that the PEP could only determine camera movement by ratioing the parallax measurements, and that those incidents of parallax were so tiny that they were expressed in millimeters and were only detected with the aid of computer analysis and microscopes.
 

But if the differences in the background-object distances had actually been larger "in the real world," this would have proved the camera's movement was larger "in the real world," a point that the PEP would have loudly trumpeted.

The PEP produced screen-size enlargements of the photos as visual aids for their testimony to the Select Committee. Not once did Kirk and McCamy refer to a difference in background-object distances that could be seen with the naked by the committee members.

Huh? Again, the PEP admitted that the changes in the camera's horizontal and vertical position between exposures were "slight" and "very small." Furthermore, the PEP did not even measure for changes in the camera's angular position, implying the impossible scenario that the camera did not tilt in the slightest degree at any angle between exposures.

And please tell me how the PEP could prove that the same background was not used in the backyard photos when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos, especially given the fact that the backyard figure's pose in 133-C is different than his poses in the two other photos. I can't help but suspect that the PEP did measure for parallax in 133-C, realized the measurements and resulting camera movement were problematic, and decided to simply ignore 133-C when it came to parallax and camera movement.

This is just silly, given the difficulty that the PEP had in detecting any change in the camera's vertical position. They could only find one determination for vertical parallax and had to resort to claiming that vertical parallax was established because the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of a part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B (6 HSCA 179).

Moreover, in her later years, no longer under threat of deportation, Marina stated in a taped interview that she did not take the backyard rifle photos in evidence.

Years earlier, when she was still claiming she'd taken the pictures, she said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos. Humm, no way. The Imperial Reflex 620 had no viewfinder that you could hold up to your eye--it only had a waist-level viewfinder on its top, which required you to hold the camera below the level of your head and to look down into the viewfinder.

As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.

And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.

MG: Below are some of the problems with the backyard rifle photos noted by Hershal Womack, a professor of photography at Texas Tech University...

...which doesn't address the OP or the point I raised about the OP. You're down to a Galloping Gish, blowing smoke across the pasture.


MG: Yes, there most certainly are {microscopic distances}. Let us once again look at the table for paragraph 441 regarding the horizontal parallax measurements in the PEP's report (6 HSCA 178). The difference in the lower-level "a" distance between 133-A and 133-B was measured to be just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "a" distance was found to be just 0.1 mm, or 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was found to be just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch.

The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects in the photos, unless they have super-human vision. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of a high-powered magnifying glass or a microscope, just as the PEP did.

Let's continue: The difference in the lower-level "b" distance between 133-A and 133-B was found to be just 0.5 mm, or 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "b" distance was found to be 0.7 mm, or 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.

Of all of the measurements you've given here the smallest is 0.1mm. "Microscopic" is generally held to be "too small to be seen by the naked eye". For reference, a dime is a little over 1 mm thick. The tiny ridges along the circunference of a dime are spaced every 0.18mm. The width of a human hair ranges from 0.18mm to 0.018mm, and is typcially held to be .075mm on average. People can generally distinguish the ridges along a dime's edge or a human hair. Therefore, "microscopic" refers to something even smaller than the smallest number you've given, much less any of the others.


MG: But if the differences in the background-object distances had actually been larger "in the real world," this would have proved the camera's movement was larger "in the real world," a point that the PEP would have loudly trumpeted.

Says who? This is really just some irrational projection you hurl against McCamy, Kirk, et al, because you have nothing left to argue with. Again, all the PEP needed to do is show that parallax existed in order to show that the backgrounds are not identical. There is no requirement that it be either larger or smaller than some amount. The PEP also reported that they were able to view the different photos stereoscopically, which also demonstrates that the backgrounds are not identical.


MG: And please tell me how the PEP could prove that the same background was not used in the backyard photos when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos, especially given the fact that the backyard figure's pose in 133-C is different than his poses in the two other photos. I can't help but suspect that the PEP did measure for parallax in 133-C, realized the measurements and resulting camera movement were problematic, and decided to simply ignore 133-C when it came to parallax and camera movement

As I've mentioned before, the claim that A,B and C are identical can be completely refuted by showing any combination of: A and B are not identical, B and C are not identical, A and C are not identical. This is basic logic, and is apparently beyond your comprehension.


MG: This is just silly, given the difficulty that the PEP had in detecting any change in the camera's vertical position. They could only find one determination for vertical parallax and had to resort to claiming that vertical parallax was established because the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of a part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B (6 HSCA 179).

They only needed to find one example to disprove the contention that the backgrounds in the the photos are identical. Again, basic logic.


MG: As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.

And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.

If you want that done, do it yourself.

[Michael T. Griffith]

MG: Below are some of the problems with the backyard rifle photos noted by Hershal Womack, a professor of photography at Texas Tech University...

...which doesn't address the OP or the point I raised about the OP. You're down to a Galloping Gish, blowing smoke across the pasture.

You again showcase your ability to misread and misrepresent. I made several points in the OP, only one of which was incorrect.

In the OP I pointed out that Mytton makes the utterly bogus claim that the incidents of parallax in the photos are "massive" and "vast," when in fact they were so small that they could only be detected with the aid of computers and microscopes and were found to be matter of millimeters, sometimes 0.1 mm.

In the OP, I discussed Mytton's claim that the backyard photos are "tiny," when in fact 133-C Dees is an 8 x 10 first-generation print and 133-A Stovall is a first-generation 5 x 8 print. The PEP was able to make high-quality enlargements from 133-A DeM that could be displayed on a large-screen viewer because 133-A DeM was “probably made in a high-quality enlarger with a high-quality lens” (6 H 148).

In addition, in the OP I repeated one of the central points about the backyard photos as revealed by the PEP's parallax measurements, i.e., that the differences in the distances between the background objects would be far greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, that there is no way that a cheap top-viewfinder handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures would produce photos that contain differences in background-object distances that are so small they could only be detected with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes.

Did you just "forget" about these points that I made in the OP?

MG: Yes, there most certainly are {microscopic distances}. Let us once again look at the table for paragraph 441 regarding the horizontal parallax measurements in the PEP's report (6 HSCA 178). The difference in the lower-level "a" distance between 133-A and 133-B was measured to be just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "a" distance was found to be just 0.1 mm, or 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was found to be just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch.

The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects in the photos, unless they have super-human vision. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of a high-powered magnifying glass or a microscope, just as the PEP did.

Let's continue: The difference in the lower-level "b" distance between 133-A and 133-B was found to be just 0.5 mm, or 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "b" distance was found to be 0.7 mm, or 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.

Of all of the measurements you've given here the smallest is 0.1mm. "Microscopic" is generally held to be "too small to be seen by the naked eye". For reference, a dime is a little over 1 mm thick. The tiny ridges along the circunference of a dime are spaced every 0.18mm. The width of a human hair ranges from 0.18mm to 0.018mm, and is typcially held to be .075mm on average. People can generally distinguish the ridges along a dime's edge or a human hair. Therefore, "microscopic" refers to something even smaller than the smallest number you've given, much less any of the others.

So you're doubling down on Mytton's ludicrous claim that the background-distance differences are "very visible" to the naked eye. Why, then, was the PEP only able to detect them with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes?

Your comparisons of dimes and human hair are patently ridiculous. First off, a dime is 1.35 mm thick, not just "a little over 1 mm thick." Second, simply discerning the existence of ridges on the side of a dime or being able to see a human hair has nothing to do with detecting the kinds of differences in the distances between background objects that the PEP found in the backyard photos.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if someone produced a dime with ridges that were 0.08 mm apart instead of the usual 0.18 mm apart, and if you showed the altered dime and a regular dime to 10 people and asked them if they noticed any differences in the two dimes' ridges, without the aid of any magnification? Huh? How many people do you think would detect the difference in the spacing of the ridges without any kind of magnification and without holding the dimes very close to their eyes but holding them no closer than 12 inches to their eyes? And if any of those 10 people said they thought the ridges were closer together on one of the dimes, how many of them do you think would be able to tell you that the amount of difference was 0.1 mm? Huh?

Similarly, of course, if a human hair is held close enough to you, you will be able to see/discern it, but that has nothing to do with the parallax measurements discussion. Take a deep breath and think about this: If you took two photos, say 8 x 10 in size, and moved an object in the background of one of the photos by 0.075 mm, are you seriously suggesting that people would be able to detect the 0.075 mm difference in the distance between the two objects without any magnification? Really?

A 0.1 mm difference in the distance between two background objects in two photos is indeed microscopic, which is why the PEP had to use computers and microscopes to do their photogrammetric measurements.

MG: But if the differences in the background-object distances had actually been larger "in the real world," this would have proved the camera's movement was larger "in the real world," a point that the PEP would have loudly trumpeted.

Says who? This is really just some irrational projection you hurl against McCamy, Kirk, et al, because you have nothing left to argue with.

Oh, come on. You can't really believe that the PEP would have said nothing if they had found evidence that the camera's movement was not just "slight" and "very small" but was much larger.

Mytton's whole argument about camera movement "in the real world," as if the PEP was talking about some other world, is nonsensical and further evidence of his utter incompetence. The PEP was talking about the camera's movement "in the real world." What other world does Mytton think the PEP was referencing when they said the camera moved to the left only "slightly" and that the change in its vertical position was "very small"? Mars? Venus? Some unseen parallel world?

Again, all the PEP needed to do is show that parallax existed in order to show that the backgrounds are not identical. There is no requirement that it be either larger or smaller than some amount.

Nonsense. They needed to show that the amount of parallax was reasonable and plausible in light of how the photos were allegedly made, but instead they found that the differences between the background objects were only tiny fractions of an inch and had to be measured with the aid of computers and microscopes.

Furthermore, they didn't even measure 133-C for parallax, a fact that you blithely and incredibly dismiss as meaningless.

The PEP also reported that they were able to view the different photos stereoscopically, which also demonstrates that the backgrounds are not identical.

One, the PEP experts knew full well that fake photos can also be viewed stereoscopically as long as they show two different perspectives, even if the perspectives are only slightly different.

Two, I have repeatedly said that the identical-background argument is not necessary to prove the photos are fake, and that the main point about the backgrounds is that the microscopic differences in the distances between their objects could not have been produced by a handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures but indicate that a tripod was used and that Marina was not the photographer.

Again, in her later years, Marina said in a record interview that she did not take the backyard photos in evidence. When she was pressured and manipulated into going along with the official story, she said that she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos (a physical impossibility with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera), that she only took one or two photos, that she had never seen the white sling, and that she had not seen a telescopic sight on the rifle.

MG: And please tell me how the PEP could prove that the same background was not used in the backyard photos when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos, especially given the fact that the backyard figure's pose in 133-C is different than his poses in the two other photos. I can't help but suspect that the PEP did measure for parallax in 133-C, realized the measurements and resulting camera movement were problematic, and decided to simply ignore 133-C when it came to parallax and camera movement

As I've mentioned before, the claim that A,B and C are identical can be completely refuted by showing any combination of: A and B are not identical, B and C are not identical, A and C are not identical. This is basic logic, and is apparently beyond your comprehension.

This is your idea of "basic logic"?! How do you know that 133-C's background is not identical to 133-A's or 133-B's? You don't, because the PEP, incredibly, failed to do parallax measurements on the photo (or, if they did, the never mentioned them). If 133-C's background were identical to 133-A's background, that would be a huge problem for your side. Or, if 133-C's background were identical to 133-B's background, that would also be a huge problem for your side.

MG: This is just silly, given the difficulty that the PEP had in detecting any change in the camera's vertical position. They could only find one determination for vertical parallax and had to resort to claiming that vertical parallax was established because the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of a part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B (6 HSCA 179).

They only needed to find one example to disprove the contention that the backgrounds in the the photos are identical. Again, basic logic.

You mean basic nonsense. Let me give you some genuine basic logic: If you're claiming to prove that the backgrounds in three photos are not identical, you cannot establish this claim by only doing parallax measurements on two of the photos. Or, if you're claiming that the floor plans for three houses are not identical, you cannot establish this claim by only examining the floor plans of two of the houses.

MG: As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.

And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.

If you want that done, do it yourself.

UH-HUH. We both know that any such reenactment would prove the backyard photos to be fraudulent.

Physicist Philip Stahl, who has written books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found that they must have been tampered with:

"Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original.  However,  +30%  shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same." (http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html)

Stahl decided to conduct the analysis after reading Hany Farid’s study, which supposedly proved that the backyard photos are authentic. Stahl reviewed Farid’s study and concluded it was severely flawed, as he discusses in the above-mentioned article and in his article “Hany Farid’s Pixelated Illusions”:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked. If anyone is wondering about Charnin’s credentials, in 1965, he earned a BA in mathematics from Queens College. In 1969, he earned an MS in applied mathematics from Adelphi University, and in 1973, he earned an MS in operations research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York. Here is Charnin’s article “Mathematical Proof that the Oswald Backyard Photos Were Faked”:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/jfk-mathematical-proof-that-the-oswald-backyard-photos-were-faked/

I would recommend Charnin’s 2014 book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.

[John Mytton]

Physicist Philip Stahl, who has written books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found that they must have been tampered with:

"Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original.  However,  +30%  shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same." (http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html)

Stahl decided to conduct the analysis after reading Hany Farid’s study, which supposedly proved that the backyard photos are authentic. Stahl reviewed Farid’s study and concluded it was severely flawed, as he discusses in the above-mentioned article and in his article “Hany Farid’s Pixelated Illusions”:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked. If anyone is wondering about Charnin’s credentials, in 1965, he earned a BA in mathematics from Queens College. In 1969, he earned an MS in applied mathematics from Adelphi University, and in 1973, he earned an MS in operations research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York. Here is Charnin’s article “Mathematical Proof that the Oswald Backyard Photos Were Faked”:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/jfk-mathematical-proof-that-the-oswald-backyard-photos-were-faked/

I would recommend Charnin’s 2014 book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.

Seriously, Griffith???

This is exactly like asking my Expert local Auto Mechanic to perform Heart Surgery, it's just Bonkers!

Why do you think that continually scouring the internet for like minded Kooks who have no expertise in the given subject will further your insane agenda? Yet you do this time, and time again, it's no wonder that the Scholarly JFKA community very rarely supports your Lunacy!

Did these Laymen have the original materials to study(as did the HSCA's experts) or did they study "photocopy" quality images like that other Loon, Thompson??

BTW, have you come to any conclusion about exactly what "slightly" represents?" 1mm, 1cm, 10cm or precisely what? Hahahahaha!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Uhh, no... YOU conduct the reenactment. YOU do the measurements. It's not the responsibility of other people to validate your long-debunked blathering about these photos, which have been proven authentic time and time again.

Isn't this hilarious, it's a no win situation because when the results refute Griffith's nonsense he will just allege that we manipulated the photos using a similar method that he believes originally took place, and if Griffith recreates the backyard photos we can't trust him to be honest.
But what it does reveal is the warped mind of a JFKA conspiracy theorist, and that no level of proof can sway their faith based beliefs.

JohnM