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

[Mitch Todd]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MG: So you're doubling down on Mytton's ludicrous claim

I haven't said anything about Mytton's claim one way or the other.


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

I've misread nor misrepresented nothing. Your OP was centered on the calculation that you got so, so. so wrong. This mistake then ripples all the way through the rest of the points you try to make in your post. In addition, there is the larger point I keep making in this thread: your mistake doesn't only show that you need some remedial mathematics, but betrays that you do not (still!) understand what the PEP was doing, why they were doing it, and how they did it. So you keep running your 101-key mouth off about something that you clearly don't understand, over and over again. At least it's entertaining. Sort of.


MG: .... 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.

This claim of yours is simply an unsupported assertion, something you are prone to doing. As such, it is beneath everyone else's consideration. As another poster might say, "LOL"


MG: 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.

Where did the PEP claim that they used microsopes or computers to perform the parallax measurements? I looked, and came up with bupkis.



MG: 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.

If you say "A, B, and C are identical" then you are also saying that "A is identical to B and B is identical to C and C is identical to A." These two statements are equivalent. If someone else can show that "A is not identical to B" or "B is not identical to C" or "C is not identical to A," then the original assertion is falisified. The logic here is simple and strightforward, and I'm not surprised at all that it goes completely over your head.
 

MG: 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

You are the only person I've ever run into who would say that 1.35mm is not "a little bit over 1mm" :-D

Anyway, I chose the dime's thickness, the dime's reed's pitch, and the hair's breadth to straddle the measurements you presented as "microscopic." All of those things are easily and commonly seen with an unaided eye. Since "microscopic" refers to something that is too small for the unaided eye to see, none of the things in question should be considered "microscopic." The rest of your reply is nothing more than a bagfull of hot air.


MG: 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.

Parallax is an effect caused by viewing something from two different perspectives. By definition. A stereoscopic view is an effect caused by viewing images taken frm two different perspectives.  In a pair of stereo images, your brian uses the differences in the perspectives --that is, the parallax-- to determine depth. Parallax and stereo viewing are tied together at a fundamental level: a stereo pair will exhibit parallax, and two images with parallax will form a stereo pair.  You really, really, really have no idea what you're talking about here, do you?


MG: 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?

The PEP only had the measurements from an enlarged photograph to go by. The enlargement was about 14" across, but the scene in the photo is an area at least an order of magnitude larger, so any parallax measurement would correspond to something around 10x larger in the actual scene. The other thing to remember is that the amount of parallax is not directly related to the change in position of the camera, so there's no way to determine exactly how far the camera moves between images. But I've already pointed this out. BTW, exactly how far is "slightly?" And "very small" is small compared to what, exactly?


MG: 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.

To prove their point, all the PEP had to do was demonstrate parallax, no matter how small. Period. And I still have no idea where you got the idea that they were using computers and microscopes to perform the parallax measurements.


MG: I have repeatedly said that the identical-background argument is not necessary to prove the photos are fake

So you keep on arguing about it....  and do so very, very poorly at that.


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

No, we don't. You'd like to believe that, but it's simply not true. And you haven't given us one iota of a reason to believe so, either.


MG: 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...

Stahl's analysis was based on "the reasonable assumption that any transformation from specular dots on silver iodide based (1963) photo emulsions will undergo some drift over time." Is that really a correct assumption. He presents no argument that it is, nor any source, authoirtative or otherwise, to support the assumption. It's also based on his assumptions for a set of weights given to the various parameters. What are those based on, and are they valid?


MG: Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked

Charnin doesn't present any original analysis of the photos. He does point to Stahl's analysis, and also an analysis promulgated by the famous and highly-esteemed photographic expert Judyth Baker. If he thinks Baker is a source worth studying, he's probably not worth reading much into.

He does also present us with the opinion of  one "Canadian Defense Dept. photographic specialist Major General John Pickard." Pickard "noted that each photo was taken from a slightly different angle. When one photo was laid atop another in succession, it is found that nothing matches exactly." That is, he says that the backgrounds are not identical. Do you actually bother to read your sources?