Huh, so a "specular highlight" takes the appearance of cracks on the windshield? The damage disappears because the angle of the windshield to the camera changes, not because it's a "specular highlight."
As for Altgens 6, I cannot force you to admit you can see what you don't want to admit you can see. Roy Schaeffer noticed the windshield damage in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. Anthony DeFiore also identified windshield damage in Altgens 6 and provided high-quality enlargements of the photo showing the damage. Dr. Mantik has likewise identified windshield damage in the photo and in the same area noted by Weldon, DeFiore, and Schaeffer. But, I'm confident you guys will continue to insist you don't see it.
Regarding my photogrammetry, I had to educate you on the meaning of the term "parallax" (although you did catch me in a math gaffe resulting from the PEP's curious use of the term "results"), while Mytton made the hilarious claim that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos, when in fact the PEP explained that the parallax they found was so tiny that it could only be detected with the aid of computer analysis and high magnification.
For the benefit of other readers, regarding the issue of parallax and the backyard rifle photos, parallax is the apparent shift in an object’s position when viewed from two different points; as applied to the backyard photos, it refers to changes in the camera's position between exposures as indicated by the differences in the distances between background objects in the photos.
The HSCA's photographic experts (PEP) found very small differences between the distances in background objects in the 133-A and 133-B backyard rifle photos, differences that were so small they required the use of “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” to detect (2 HSCA 398, 405). The slight parallax between 133-A and 133-B proves the backyard photos could not have been taken in the manner claimed by the official version.
And note that the PEP only tested for horizontal and vertical parallax and only in two of the photos. Revealingly, they did not test to see 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 official story is that Marina Oswald took the three backyard photos and handed the camera to Lee between each exposure so he could forward the film for her. Leaving aside the fact that Marina later said those photos were not the ones she took, if the photos had been taken in this manner, there would have been far greater differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, i.e., the camera's position would have changed much more between exposures, and not just horizontally and vertically but also angularly.
Achieving the extremely small amount of parallax detected in the backyard photos would be difficult to achieve in the alleged circumstances even when using a tripod and a camera that automatically forwarded the film after each exposure. Mr. Brian Mee, an NSA photographer and photographic lab technician, emphasized this point when I interviewed him in the 1990s.
Like your many Zapruder failures, here again, you haven't got a clue!
Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.
Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.
I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!
BTW on your Backyard photo fraud page you seem to rely on Jack White who believes in Moon Landing and 9/11 fakery, which goes a long way to explain your belief system.
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
Topic: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory (Read 3575 times)