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

[John Mytton]

I again point out that it is very revealing that the HSCA PEP published no parallax measurements for 133-C, even though they were supposedly establishing that the backgrounds in the three photos are not all the same, and that they made no effort to determine if the camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll) changed between exposures. They only measured for horizontal and vertical movement (and found only "very small" and "slight" camera movement--a certain indicator of fraud given how the photos were allegedly made). And, the differences in the distances between background objects in 133-A and 133-B were so small that the PEP had to use computer analysis and high magnification/microscopes to detect and measure them.

Here is a direct comparison between 133-C and 133-A, and by lining up the 2nd middle gap in the fence palings, it can be clearly seen that both backgrounds aren't identical and just as the HSCA proved with 133-B and 133-A, the camera moved.



Knowing that you would claim that the other two backyard photos could be identical and just to rain on your parade, here is a direct comparison between 133-C and 133-B, and again by lining up the 2nd middle gap in the fence palings, it can be clearly seen that both backgrounds aren't identical and just as the HSCA proved with 133-B and 133-A, the camera moved.



To address your comment regarding "camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll)" not being addressed, I've already told you, shown you and further proved that Oswald's camera tilted upwards(pitch). No offence but are you mentally retarded?



While making these above and below comparisons and to line up the gap in the fence palings I had to rotate(roll) the photos so the fence gap could line up and as witnessed in all comparisons, objects either side of the lined up fence gap/s move simultaneously away and towards the camera which illustrates, and you guessed it(yaw)!



I shouldn't need to say this yet again but here I go, your assertion of "microscopic differences" has no bearing on objects as they exist in the "real World", the HSCA were taking measurements from a vastly scaled down photo and when the measured objects are relatively measured in the "real world" as opposed to a tiny photographic representation, the HSCA example of the distance between the gate bolt to the bottom of the screen behind is NOT microscopic and the distance between these two objects is "HUGE" as compared to your microscopic nonsense! And the amount of objects that show a parallax change is indeed "VAST", so stop misrepresenting and misquoting me!



BTW, whenever you try to refute the photographic/film evidence you continue to make the most childish amateurish mistakes which are all easily disproved, you really need a new hobby!

JohnM

[Bill Brown]

Griffith, since you intentionally failed to repost my image comparison of what the HSCA was actually referring to(naughty naughty), I'll have to do it and thus prove that your "microscopic differences" was always referring to measurements taken from photos and as even Blind man Freddy can see, the relative real world difference in the gate latch to rear screen door is not and was never "microscopic". Oops!

And as an added bonus, here's a refutation of your Oswald Chin stupidity.

Oswald's chin in the backyard photos is being sculpted by the shadow from the overhead lighting source, and this effect can be seen being duplicated in real time in the hallways of the Dallas Police Department. And to suggest that Oswald's chin was replaced with someone else's chin is just amateurish and laughable.



Take note of the similarities of the shadows in Oswald's eye sockets and under his nose. And then contemplate the practically impossible difficulties of locating three slightly varying headshots of Oswald with the correct sun angles and shadows that satisfy the complicated criteria of the lighting in the backyard of Neely street.



JohnM

That's some great stuff, John (like always).

I'm going to post the chin gif in my Facebook group, JFK: Truth Be Told; with proper credit given, of course.

[John Mytton]

That's some great stuff, John (like always).

I'm going to post the chin gif in my Facebook group, JFK: Truth Be Told; with proper credit given, of course.

Hi Bill, here's a better GIF which blends all the elements into a single GIF.



JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

As soon as someone is able to duplicate the variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle photos, they will have a convincing argument for the photos' authenticity. So far, no one has been able to duplicate the variant shadows. The HSCA's photographic experts conducted an elaborate reenactment using a mannequin to try to duplicate the shadows, but they failed miserably, so much so that they had to fall back on the bogus argument that a 1D vanishing point analysis explained away the variant shadows.

You're just trying to change the subject now that your previous lines of attack have failed miserably. It's just another attempt from you to move the goal posts. We weren't talking about the "variant shadows" in this thread, only about the PEP's parallax analysis and your continuing misunderstanding of it.

BTW, the 1-point (not 1D) perspective study performed by the PEP demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the shadows are not "variant" as you blindly assert. The notion that the VPA was "bogus" is more proof that you fundamentally don't understand what the PEP was doing, how they did it, or why.

I again point out that it is very revealing that the HSCA PEP published no parallax measurements for 133-C, even though they were supposedly establishing that the backgrounds in the three photos are not all the same, and that they made no effort to determine if the camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll) changed between exposures. They only measured for horizontal and vertical movement (and found only "very small" and "slight" camera movement--a certain indicator of fraud given how the photos were allegedly made). And, the differences in the distances between background objects in 133-A and 133-B were so small that the PEP had to use computer analysis and high magnification/microscopes to detect and measure them.

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

This is just a great big steaming pile of fringe reset. Let's go through each odiferous nugget:

MG: I again point out that it is very revealing that the HSCA PEP published no parallax measurements for 133-C, even though they were supposedly establishing that the backgrounds in the three photos are not all the same

Again, in order to disprove the contention that the backgrounds in CE133A, CE133B, and CE133C are identical, all they had to do is show that the backgrounds in any two of them were not identical. The PEP did that explicitly with the parallax analysis on CE133A and CE133B. They did so implicitly when they noted that the photos can be viewed as stereo pairs.


MG: and that they made no effort to determine if the camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll) changed between exposures.

They didn't need to once they'd already established that parallax existed between CE133A and CE133B.  This is another example of you trying to move the goal posts.


MG: They only measured for horizontal and vertical movement (and found only "very small" and "slight" camera movement--a certain indicator of fraud given how the photos were allegedly made).

Again, measuring for horizontal and vertical movement is all they needed to do to disprove Jack White's claim that the backgrounds were identical. In fact, they would have only needed to show 1 dimension of movement to disprove White's claim.


MG: and found only "very small" and "slight" camera movement--a certain indicator of fraud given how the photos were allegedly made.

Exactly how much movement is "very small" and "slight?" How much would be expected? You have no idea, do you? And "certain indicator of fraud" is simply an unsupported invention all your own.


MG:  And, the differences in the distances between background objects in 133-A and 133-B were so small that the PEP had to use computer analysis and high magnification/microscopes to detect and measure them.

As far as I can tell from the PEP report and the HSCA testimonies of McCamy and Kirk, the PEP used neither computers nor microscopes to perform the parallax analysis. I've asked you before, and I'll ask you now, where did you get this idea? you didn't answer the last time.

[Michael T. Griffith]

No, nobody has yet duplicated the variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle photos. Anyone who says otherwise is either knowingly peddling false information or doesn't know what they're talking about. The HSCA PEP made the most sophisticated attempt to duplicate the shadows but failed to do so, as I document in "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view

Physicist Philip Stahl, an author of books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found 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 conducted 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. Charnin holds a BA in mathematics from Queens College, an MS in applied mathematics from Adelphi University, and an MS in operations research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York. I recommend 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 also recommend Charnin’s 2014 book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.

And I would bet all of my IRAs that no WC apologist will ever do a reenactment to try to duplicate the incredibly small differences in the distances between the background objects that the HSCA PEP found in two of the backyard photos. There is no way on this planet that a cheap topside-view-finder, lever-activated camera that was allegedly handed back and forth between exposures and supposedly used by an amateur who had rarely taken photos before could have produced photos that contained such amazingly small differences in the distances between background objects, differences so small that the PEP had to use computer analysis and microscopes to detect them.

And, mind you, the HSCA PEP did not even try to establish the degree of change in the camera's angular position between exposures, hinting at the preposterous implication that the camera's angular position did not change in the slightest degree between exposures. The PEP only measured for horizontal and vertical camera movement, and only between 133-A and 133-B, suspiciously ignoring 133-C.