JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on September 26, 2025, 02:33:18 PM
-
The reply that I answer below was posted on August 13 in Bill Brown's thread on the Walker shooting. I didn't notice the reply until this morning when I was going back through the thread. The reply was written by John Mytton. He was responding to my point that the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel's (PEP's) parallax measurements found incredibly tiny differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, and that these microscopic differences prove the photos could not have been taken in the way the official story says they were taken, i.e., with Marina and Lee handing the camera back and forth twice so Lee could forward the film for her.
I normally don't go out of my way to highlight another person's blunder, but Mytton's blunder is so astonishing and discrediting that I decided to post my response to his reply in a new thread on the backyard photos and the HSCA PEP. I would point out, however, that I do not name Mytton in the thread title. I never single out anyone in a thread title, no matter how obnoxious or wrong they are.
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.
Oh, boy! I mean, oh my goodness. As we will see in a moment, you are the one who clearly does not understand the numbers.
What is beyond laughable is that you would deny that the parallax differences are extremely tiny. Again, even the HSCA PEP admitted they are "very small," but you erroneously claim they are "massive" and "vast."
BTW, the HSCA PEP also acknowledged that the "very small" differences in the distances between background objects proved that the camera changed position only "slightly" between photos, a telling admission given the way the photos were supposedly taken. The odds that the camera would return to virtually the same position--in angle, distance, tilt--after being handed back and forth twice are astronomically remote, to the point of being zero for all intents and purposes.
"Tiny photos"? Huh? The HSCA PEP admitted that 133-A DeM, which is much clearer than 133-A, was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” because of its higher resolution (6 HSCA 148). The PEP was able to make large high-quality prints with 133-A DeM. At the Sixth-Floor Museum and in the Dallas Police Department Collection, one of the prints is 14 x 11 inches, while others are 5 x 4 inches. The 14 x 11 print is quite clear and high in quality.
(https://i.ibb.co/4wBzyKr8/Vertical-parallax-gate-bolt-to-screen-HSCA-2.jpg)
LOL! This has to rank as one of your all-time blunders. You cite the vertical gate-bolt-to-screen measurements for 133-A and 133-B and then act like that's the end of the story. You apparently missed the whole point of the measurements. How in the world did you miss the fact that the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical gate-bolt-to-screen measurements is only 0.15 mm? That's 2.11 mm in 133-B vs. 1.96 mm in 133-A, which gives us the amazingly tiny difference of 0.15 mm. Did they not teach you basic subtraction in school?
Do you know how tiny 0.15 mm is? Huh? 0.15 mm is only 0.005905512 inches, or 1/128th of an inch. By any standard, that is a microscopic difference.
The PEP provided 133-A and 133-B vertical gate-bolt-to-screen measurements to enable us to see the difference between them, but you clearly did not grasp this and thus failed to do basic subtraction; instead, you assumed you were somehow proving something just by citing the measurements without addressing the microscopic difference between them. I have rarely seen such an astonishing blunder in an online discussion.
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!
"Haha" indeed! Your goofy graphic is based on your stunning failure to do basic subtraction with the 133-A and 133-B vertical gate-bolt-to-screen measurements. It is just comical that you would cite those measurements and then fail to compare them, which was the whole point of the measurements.
So 0.15 mm/0.005905512 inches is not microscopic? 0.0059 inches, or 1/128th of an inch, is so tiny that you can't even measure it on an engineer scale ruler. You can't even see such a tiny distance with the naked eye but need a microscope or a high-powered magnifying glass to see it.
If the backyard photos had been taken the way the official story says they were taken, there would be far greater differences in the distances between background objects. Taking three photos with such tiny differences in background-object distances would be difficult for professional photographer with a modern digital handheld camera with a touch-screen button. It would have been impossible to do this with a cheap Imperial Reflex 620 camera handed back and forth twice between three exposures.
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. JohnM
You know this is false. I approvingly cite only one of Jack White's arguments, and that's on how frame edge markings could have been produced, and several professional photographers I interviewed confirmed that on this point White was correct. Mr. Mee also said White was correct on this point. And, I only cite White's video once or twice merely to reference photos that he presents in the video. I spend far more time citing British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson, former NSA photographic expert Brian Mee, and the HSCA PEP's parallax and Penrose measurements.
And, it bears repeating that the percentage of people who believe in 9/11 fakery is very close to the percentage of people who believe in your version of the JFK shooting. You might want to keep that in mind.
-
And, it bears repeating that the percentage of people who believe in 9/11 fakery is very close to the percentage of people who believe in your version of the JFK shooting. You might want to keep that in mind.
Half of Americans Believe in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (https://www.livescience.com/56479-americans-believe-conspiracy-theories.html)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/c1z2pnM2/children-with-more-brains-than-Griffith.webp)
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!
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/4wBzyKr8/Vertical-parallax-gate-bolt-to-screen-HSCA-2.jpg)
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!
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs6x3DQx/Parallax-HSCA-gate-latch-to-screen-door.gif)
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.
JohnM
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/prDqgpBJ/chin-oswald-backyard-arrest.gif)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzHkp947/chin-backyard-and-arrest.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/c1z2pnM2/children-with-more-brains-than-Griffith.webp)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/prDqgpBJ/chin-oswald-backyard-arrest.gif)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzHkp947/chin-backyard-and-arrest.gif)
"microscopic differences" was always referring to measurements taken from photos
What are the odds that he'll understand what you are referring to? Or that if he does clue in to it, he'll admit that he was wrong?
-
What are the odds that he'll understand what you are referring to? Or that if he does clue in to it, he'll admit that he was wrong?
What are the odds that he'll understand what you are referring to?
Griffith isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and after destroying his fakery nonsense, he just goes away and then comes back with the same refuted nonsense again, again and again. -sigh-
Or that if he does clue in to it, he'll admit that he was wrong?
Much like DiEugenio, Griffith has a vested interest in perpetuating his conspiracy myth and as money is his driving force, truth be damned!
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51k0MMXsK+L._AC_CR0%2C0%2C0%2C0_SX480_SY360_.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bc/b6/6f/bcb66ffeadd333d6e47f083d331173fa.jpg)
JohnM
-
Griffith isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and after destroying his fakery nonsense, he just goes away and then comes back with the same refuted nonsense again, again and again. -sigh-
Much like DiEugenio, Griffith has a vested interest in perpetuating his conspiracy myth and as money is his driving force, truth be damned!
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51k0MMXsK+L._AC_CR0%2C0%2C0%2C0_SX480_SY360_.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bc/b6/6f/bcb66ffeadd333d6e47f083d331173fa.jpg)
JohnM
I just looked at the book on Amazon. For $62, you can get that book, DiEugenio et al's Chokeholds, and one other conspiracy peddling book. I read Chokeholds. I chose not to leave a review or rating of it on Amazon. It's deserves a one star rating though. I critiqued one or two chapters of it on X.
-
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!
IOW, never mind the actual measurements of the differences! No, ignore those and rely on your goofy "image comparison"! Nah, that's okay. I'll take the actual measurements over your absurd, dishonest image.
And never mind that you failed to do basic subtraction to get the difference between the gate-bolt-to-screen measurements.
BTW, the horizontal parallax measurements are equally damning. Once again, the differences had to be expressed in millimeters:
a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 mm
a-upper: 1.1 mm
b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm
As you can see, the largest difference was only 1.0 mm (a-upper vs. b-upper), which equals 0.039 inches. 0.039 inches as a fraction is 39/1000th of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of an inch is 1.59 mm, 58% larger than 39/1000th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.
And as an added bonus, here's a refutation of your Oswald Chin stupidity.
You know, you're not really in a position to be accusing anyone of stupidity, given that you made the astonishing blunder of failing to do basic subtraction to realize the microscopic difference between the gate-bolt-to-screen measurements.
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. JohnM
Oh, "laughable," huh? That's odd, because former Scotland Yard photographic expert Malcolm Thompson was convinced that the backyard figure's chin is different than Oswald's chin. Your cherry-picked photos ignore other photos that show an obvious difference in the chins.
-
There's no point arguing with Griffith. He believes every long-debunked conspiracy theory and appears immune to logic except when calling out the lies of Fletcher Prouty. Never mind that Marina admitted to taking the backyard photos, that Oswald gave a copy of one of them to George DeMohrenschildt, etc.. In conspiracy land, why should any of that matter?
-
There's no point arguing with Griffith. He believes every long-debunked conspiracy theory and appears immune to logic except when calling out the lies of Fletcher Prouty. Never mind that Marina admitted to taking the backyard photos, that Oswald gave a copy of one of them to George DeMohrenschildt, etc. In conspiracy land, why should any of that matter?
Once again you post claims that are years behind the information curve and prove that you've read nothing but pro-WC material.
First off, I note that you said nothing about the impossibly tiny differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, which is the focus of the thread.
Now, let's take a look at your claims.
Marina only "admitted" to taking the backyard pictures after she was held for weeks by the Secret Service and threatened with deportation. She later said she did not take the backyard rifle photos.
Oswald did not give a copy of one of the backyard rifle photos to DeMohrenschildt. The DeMohrenschildt family believed the photo was planted in their belongings. They never said Oswald gave it to them.
The date on the back of the photo, supposedly written by Oswald, was in a format that he never, ever used.
Are you aware of any of the other problems with the 133-A DeMohrenschildt photo? I discuss them in my article on the backyard photos, which apparently you still haven't bothered to read.
The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view
Are you aware of the huge problems with the provenance of the backyard rifle photos? I'm guessing the answer is No.
I'm actually surprised that you guys are siding with Mytton after he so utterly discredited himself on the HSCA PEP's parallax measurements of the backyard rifle photos. He was so unbelievable clueless that he missed the whole point of the measurements and failed to do basic subtraction to realize the microscopic differences in the distances between the background objects revealed by the measurements. Even worse, in his reply in this thread he has again doubled down on his embarrassing lack of knowledge and distortion of the known facts. He can't seem to process that the PEP members themselves admitted that the differences are "very small," yet he is still claiming they are large. I would think you guys, for your own credibility, would ditch someone who has so thoroughly discredited himself on the backyard photos.
Anyway, here are some articles you should read if you want to know the full story about the backyard rifle photos:
A highly technical analysis by David Josephs of the indications of forgery in the backyard photos, along with a detailed look at their problem-riddled provenance
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-backyard-photographs
Two less-technical articles on the indications of forgery in the backyard photos and the problems with the photos' origins
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-4
-
Once again you post claims that are years behind the information curve and prove that you've read nothing but pro-WC material.
First off, I note that you said nothing about the impossibly tiny differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, which is the focus of the thread.
Now, let's take a look at your claims.
Marina only "admitted" to taking the backyard pictures after she was held for weeks by the Secret Service and threatened with deportation. She later said she did not take the backyard rifle photos.
Oswald did not give a copy of one of the backyard rifle photos to DeMohrenschildt. The DeMohrenschildt family believed the photo was planted in their belongings. They never said Oswald gave it to them.
The date on the back of the photo, supposedly written by Oswald, was in a format that he never, ever used.
Are you aware of any of the other problems with the 133-A DeMohrenschildt photo? I discuss them in my article on the backyard photos, which apparently you still haven't bothered to read.
The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view
Are you aware of the huge problems with the provenance of the backyard rifle photos? I'm guessing the answer is No.
I'm actually surprised that you guys are siding with Mytton after he so utterly discredited himself on the HSCA PEP's parallax measurements of the backyard rifle photos. He was so unbelievable clueless that he missed the whole point of the measurements and failed to do basic subtraction to realize the microscopic differences in the distances between the background objects revealed by the measurements. Even worse, in his reply in this thread he has again doubled down on his embarrassing lack of knowledge and distortion of the known facts. He can't seem to process that the PEP members themselves admitted that the differences are "very small," yet he is still claiming they are large. I would think you guys, for your own credibility, would ditch someone who has so thoroughly discredited himself on the backyard photos.
Anyway, here are some articles you should read if you want to know the full story about the backyard rifle photos:
A highly technical analysis by David Josephs of the indications of forgery in the backyard photos, along with a detailed look at their problem-riddled provenance
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-backyard-photographs
Two less-technical articles on the indications of forgery in the backyard photos and the problems with the photos' origins
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-4
I'm actually surprised that you guys are siding with Mytton after he so utterly discredited himself on the HSCA PEP's parallax measurements of the backyard rifle photos.
Maybe, it's because that those siding with me can actually comprehend the following comparison, I simply took the same two photos(CE133A and CE133B) that the HSCA compared and then demonstrated that the difference between the gate latch and the rear screen door is relatively far in excess of 1mm, it's not exactly rocket science.
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs6x3DQx/Parallax-HSCA-gate-latch-to-screen-door.gif)
JohnM
-
Oh, "laughable," huh? That's odd, because former Scotland Yard photographic expert Malcolm Thompson was convinced that the backyard figure's chin is different than Oswald's chin. Your cherry-picked photos ignore other photos that show an obvious difference in the chins.
Yes laughable!
I took two images with similar overhead lighting and directly compared them to each other and proved beyond all doubt that the square chin is caused by the resulting shadow.
I redid my previous GIF to include the actual backyard photo and the similarity is conclusive.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YCYrkJQ5/Oswald-square-chin.gif)
By the way, the popular conspiracy theory that the bottom of Oswald's chin was removed and the upper portion of Oswald's face was composited on to someone else's chin is easily disproven by microscopically examining the consistent original grain structure, because a composite photo would be detectable due to the mismatch of the photo grain.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tRz5JK2/100graink.jpg)
JohnM
-
Maybe, it's because that those siding with me can actually comprehend the following comparison, I simply took the same two photos (CE133A and CE133B) that the HSCA compared and then demonstrated that the difference between the gate latch and the rear screen door is relatively far in excess of 1mm, it's not exactly rocket science.
LOL! You're still ignoring the HSCA PEP's gate-bolt-to-screen parallax measurements! You're right: It's not exactly rocket science--it's a matter of doing basic subtraction! But your goofy graphic simply ignores the parallax measurements, and then you compound your blunder by claiming that the difference is "far in excess of 1 mm." Uh, no, it is not.
Let's do the math, shall we? How about math, instead of your ridiculous graphical fabrications? Here are the parallax measurements, straight from the PEP report:
133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 177-180)
Okay, so the 133B measurement, i.e., the larger of the two, is 2.11 mm, and the 133A measurement, the smaller number, is 1.96 mm.
Alright, so what is 2.11 mm minus 1.96 mm? Answer: 0.15 mm
So, no, the gate-bolt-to-screen difference between 133A and 133B is not "far in excess of 1 mm." It is only 0.15 mm. 0.15 mm is 85% smaller than 1 mm. It is only 0.005905512 inches. Expressed as a fraction, this microscopic difference is 59/10000ths of an inch. You need a micrometer just to measure such a tiny distance. It cannot be measured or discerned with the naked eye.
This is twice now that you've committed this same amazing blunder of failing to do basic subtraction to get the difference between the two measurements. Incredible.
Yes laughable! I took two images with similar overhead lighting and directly compared them to each other and proved beyond all doubt that the square chin is caused by the resulting shadow. I redid my previous GIF to include the actual backyard photo and the similarity is conclusive.
I don't know how in the world anyone takes you and your zany graphics seriously. You don't even know what your own side's experts have claimed on this issue, much less what skeptical experts have said. FYI, the HSCA PEP experts claimed that the backyard figure's chin "vanishes in shadow." They acknowledged that the chin in the backyard photos looks different than the chin in undisputed Oswald photos, but they said this was because the bottom part of the backyard figure's chin is concealed by shadows.
Do you know who Malcolm Thompson was? He ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau of Scotland Yard for 25 years. He was also a president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society, and the Institute of Professional Investigators. Here's what he said about the backyard figure's chin vs. Oswald's chin:
I have seen photographs of Oswald and his chin is not square.
He has a rounded chin. Having said that, the subject in this picture has a square
chin but again it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to appreciate that
from the upper lip to the top of the head is Oswald and one can only conclude
that Oswald's head has been stuck on to a chin, not being Oswald's chin.
And Thompson didn't buy the HSCA PEP's explanation for the chin difference, by the way.
By the way, the popular conspiracy theory that the bottom of Oswald's chin was removed and the upper portion of Oswald's face was composited on to someone else's chin is easily disproven by microscopically examining the consistent original grain structure, because a composite photo would be detectable due to the mismatch of the photo grain. JohnM
Oh, really? "Easily detectable," hey? Are you sure about that?
Once again you show you don't know what you're talking about. As former NSA photographic expert Brian Mee explained to me, and as Malcolm Thompson noted, you could thwart any grain-structure analysis by making a photocopy of the composites. The compositing of one person's chin onto the image of another person's face would be undetectable in a photocopy. Thompson made the point that even a computer analysis would likely be unable to detect forgery in photocopied composites.
Furthermore, how do you explain the obvious line that runs across the backyard figure's chin? It is a nearly straight line for most of its length. It begins on one side of the neck, crosses the chin, and ends on the other side of the neck. The PEP tried to explain it away with the claim that it was the edge of a watermark. Every photographic expert I interviewed rejected that explanation, noting they had never seen a watermark with an edge that was virtually straight.
You know, if I were a WC apologist, and I saw another WC apologist making the kinds of horrendous gaffes that you're making, I would steer clear of your threads, not to mention your arguments. But I've noticed that you guys, much like members of a cult, tend to stand by each other no matter how embarrassingly bad your arguments are and no matter how thoroughly you get refuted.
-
Do you know who Malcolm Thompson was?
What, the same Malcom Thompson who after thoroughly embarrassing himself with his half-assed lame examination of the backyard photos was forced to retract his amateurish Griffithesque analysis and deferred to the superior HSCA analysis? That Malcom Thompson? Hahaha!
Malcolm Thomson the British forensic photography expert who publicly questioned the authenticity of the backyard picture was shown a preliminary summary of the panel's report and asked to comment. He was also offered an opportunity to appear before the committee to express his views. After studying the reports Thomson deferred to the panel's conclusions that the photographs revealed no evidence of fakery He noted the thoroughness of the panel's investigation and emphasized that his earlier comments were based upon examination of copies of the photographs rather than the original material.
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf
Try again Griffith!
JohnM
-
My previous graphic showing the vertical parallax between CE133a and CE133B demonstrated a massive difference between the gate latch and the rear screen door and definitively proved that the two backgrounds were taken from two distinctly different positions and thus rules out a common background with Oswald pasted in.
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs6x3DQx/Parallax-HSCA-gate-latch-to-screen-door.gif)
Now let's examine the horizontal parallax. Griffith always shows the difference in measurements but doesn't show where these differences originated from? Well dear reader that will become very clear.
In the following extract from the HSCA Photographic Panel(PP) we can see that for measurement "a" the PP measured the distance from the "left edge of the foreground post to the left edge of the picket to the left of it" and the lower measurement in CE133A came to 6.8mm, and 6.8mm is about half the width of your pinky finger or a little over a quarter of an inch!!
(https://i.postimg.cc/yNf3LJWM/HSCA-horizontal-parallax-backyard-photos.jpg)
For reference, here is CE133A and only a charlatan would suggest that the real world distance from the camera perspective, measured from the left edge of the post to the left edge of the picket fence is 6.8mm, so where does this lead us? The HSCA measurements came from a much smaller photo and when scaled to the actual objects size, the measurements obviously scale upwards as well, which makes Griffiths microscopic movement allegation truly delusional.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ydkjjCYY/CE133-A-crop.jpg)
So in conclusion Oswald's camera moved in all axis, up and down, left and right and also a slight rotation, just as one would expect to see in the real world.
Just what Griffith is actually alleging is a bit of a mystery, even if his initial misunderstanding was somehow correct there is still camera movement therefore the backgrounds by definition are different which makes a common background a non starter and this also rules out a stationary tripod taking all three photos.
Here are the full frame photos from Oswald's camera, Marina's technique got better as she progressively took the photos, in 133B she cut off Oswald's feet and later in 133A she centred Oswald and captured his whole body and we know there is a time span between photos because of the movement of the shadows on the background objects, like the pair of power cable shadows on the foreground post. Marina has never denied taking the backyard photos and Marina testified that she was hanging up diapers and not bouncing all over the backyard, so as Oswald advanced the film for her while she was standing in roughly the same spot, the amount of parallax movement within the photos is totally consistent with the way the photos were taken.
And finally, for the critics of the parallax shifting between photos, have any of you actually replicated the shots under similar circumstances? Because your guesses and speculation about what your biased mind thinks should have happened is a waste of everyone's time.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QxfK9tRX/HSCA-full-frame-CE133-a-b.jpg)
Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.
JohnM
-
My previous graphic showing the vertical parallax between CE133a and CE133B demonstrated a massive difference between the gate latch and the rear screen door and definitively proved that the two backgrounds were taken from two distinctly different positions and thus rules out a common background with Oswald pasted in.
Now let's examine the horizontal parallax. Griffith always shows the difference in measurements but doesn't show where these differences originated from? Well dear reader that will become very clear.
In the following extract from the HSCA Photographic Panel(PP) we can see that for measurement "a" the PP measured the distance from the "left edge of the foreground post to the left edge of the picket to the left of it" and the lower measurement in CE133A came to 6.8mm, and 6.8mm is about half the width of your pinky finger or a little over a quarter of an inch!!
For reference, here is CE133A and only a charlatan would suggest that the real world distance from the camera perspective, measured from the left edge of the post to the left edge of the picket fence is 6.8mm, so where does this lead us? The HSCA measurements came from a much smaller photo and when scaled to the actual objects size, the measurements obviously scale upwards as well, which makes Griffiths microscopic movement allegation truly delusional.
So in conclusion Oswald's camera moved in all axis, up and down, left and right and also a slight rotation, just as one would expect to see in the real world.
Just what Griffith is actually alleging is a bit of a mystery, even if his initial misunderstanding was somehow correct there is still camera movement therefore the backgrounds by definition are different which makes a common background a non starter and this also rules out a stationary tripod taking all three photos.
Here are the full frame photos from Oswald's camera, Marina's technique got better as she progressively took the photos, in 133B she cut off Oswald's feet and later in 133A she centred Oswald and captured his whole body and we know there is a time span between photos because of the movement of the shadows on the background objects, like the pair of power cable shadows on the foreground post. Marina has never denied taking the backyard photos and Marina testified that she was hanging up diapers and not bouncing all over the backyard, so as Oswald advanced the film for her while she was standing in roughly the same spot, the amount of parallax movement within the photos is totally consistent with the way the photos were taken.
And finally, for the critics of the parallax shifting between photos, have any of you actually replicated the shots under similar circumstances? Because your guesses and speculation about what your biased mind thinks should have happened is a waste of everyone's time.
Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.
JohnM
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. Even when you are demonstrably, self-evidently wrong, mathematically wrong, you won't admit it, and then you continue to post arguments that you must know are misleading and inaccurate. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel and repeat all the facts I've presented in previous replies, facts that you keep dancing around, but I'll quickly recap the essential facts:
-- The HSCA photographic experts said the parallax measurements found that the differences between objects in the background were "VERY SMALL." But you say they're "massive."
-- The HSCA photographic experts also admitted that the "VERY SMALL" differences proved that the camera moved only "SLIGHTLY" between exposures, a practical impossibility given the way these photos were allegedly taken (cheap camera with a top-view view finder and a side lever for a button handed back and forth so Oswald could forward the film).
-- 133-A DeM is large, high-quality photo and was clearly made from a different negative than 133-A. Some of the other prints made were 5 x 9. So we're not talking about "tiny photographs."
And, again, the HSCA experts acknowledged that the differences between the background objects in photos are "VERY SMALL."
Every photographic expert I interviewed said such tiny differences between background objects would be difficult to achieve with photos taken by a professional photographer using a modern camera. Mr. Mee said the differences should have been much greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the WC.
-- Before she was threatened with deportation, Marina Oswald repeatedly said she never saw Oswald carrying or holding a rifle. And, years later, no longer under threat deportation, she said she did not take the backyard rifle photos.
-
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. Even when you are demonstrably, self-evidently wrong, mathematically wrong, you won't admit it, and then you continue to post arguments that you must know are misleading and inaccurate. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel and repeat all the facts I've presented in previous replies, facts that you keep dancing around, but I'll quickly recap the essential facts:
-- The HSCA photographic experts said the parallax measurements found that the differences between objects in the background were "VERY SMALL." But you say they're "massive."
-- The HSCA photographic experts also admitted that the "VERY SMALL" differences proved that the camera moved only "SLIGHTLY" between exposures, a practical impossibility given the way these photos were allegedly taken (cheap camera with a top-view view finder and a side lever for a button handed back and forth so Oswald could forward the film).
-- 133-A DeM is large, high-quality photo and was clearly made from a different negative than 133-A. Some of the other prints made were 5 x 9. So we're not talking about "tiny photographs."
And, again, the HSCA experts acknowledged that the differences between the background objects in photos are "VERY SMALL."
Every photographic expert I interviewed said such tiny differences between background objects would be difficult to achieve with photos taken by a professional photographer using a modern camera. Mr. Mee said the differences should have been much greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the WC.
-- Before she was threatened with deportation, Marina Oswald repeatedly said she never saw Oswald carrying or holding a rifle. And, years later, no longer under threat deportation, she said she did not take the backyard rifle photos.
I should add that you, John Mytton, have compounded your blunder because you apparently have not realized that the parallax measurements were already adjusted for scale to take into account the differences in magnification, which is why the scaling distances were part of the calculations to determine the differences in distance between objects. We know this because the HSCA PEP said this in fairly plain English in their report:
To establish scale, that is to take into account differences in
magnification, these measurements were related to the distance
from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next
measured in a horizontal direction This scaling distance was
measured on the two center pickets of the four that appear to
constitute the gate at the level of the lower edge of the top
horizontal member. (6 H 178-179)
Moreover, we see in the PEP's calculations for the gate-bolt-to-screen distances that each measured distance was divided by the scaling distance. Let's see the calculations as they appear in the HSCA PEP's report:
133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)
So the difference in the 133-A and 133-B gate-bolt-to-screen distances, with the scaling distance already factored in, is 0.15 mm, a microscopic distance, a distance that cannot be discerned or measured with the naked eye. Humm, could this be why the PEP said they found "VERY SMALL" differences in the distances between background objects in the photos?
Furthermore, I mention in my article, "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," that the calculations that determined the difference in the 133-A and 133-B gate-bolt-to-screen distances included adjustment for scaling distance:
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm
(1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B) (p. 10)
And right below the above statement, I then quote the calculations as they appear in the HSCA PEP's report. But somehow you missed this. Of course, I suspect you either didn't my article or only briefly skimmed over it. That seems to be the norm for you folks.
Even though your blunder has been exposed beyond any rational denial, I suspect you will not admit your error. But, perhaps, just perhaps, you will stop making the ridiculous claim that there are "massive" differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos.
-
I should add that you, John Mytton, have compounded your blunder because you apparently have not realized that the parallax measurements were already adjusted for scale to take into account the differences in magnification, which is why the scaling distances were part of the calculations to determine the differences in distance between objects. We know this because the HSCA PEP said this in fairly plain English in their report:
To establish scale, that is to take into account differences in
magnification, these measurements were related to the distance
from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next
measured in a horizontal direction This scaling distance was
measured on the two center pickets of the four that appear to
constitute the gate at the level of the lower edge of the top
horizontal member. (6 H 178-179)
Moreover, we see in the PEP's calculations for the gate-bolt-to-screen distances that each measured distance was divided by the scaling distance. Let's see the calculations as they appear in the HSCA PEP's report:
133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)
So the difference in the 133-A and 133-B gate-bolt-to-screen distances, with the scaling distance already factored in, is 0.15 mm, a microscopic distance, a distance that cannot be discerned or measured with the naked eye. Humm, could this be why the PEP said they found "VERY SMALL" differences in the distances between background objects in the photos?
Furthermore, I mention in my article, "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," that the calculations that determined the difference in the 133-A and 133-B gate-bolt-to-screen distances included adjustment for scaling distance:
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm
(1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B) (p. 10)
And right below the above statement, I then quote the calculations as they appear in the HSCA PEP's report. But somehow you missed this. Of course, I suspect you either didn't my article or only briefly skimmed over it. That seems to be the norm for you folks.
Even though your blunder has been exposed beyond any rational denial, I suspect you will not admit your error. But, perhaps, just perhaps, you will stop making the ridiculous claim that there are "massive" differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos.
Where are you getting these 1.96mm and 2.11mm measurements from? It's not from the PEP report. Let me show you why. Here's the PEP report excerpt you use:
133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)
30.4mm/15.5mm = 1.96. Notice that the result is a ratio, not a measurement, as the units in the denominator cancel out the units in the numerator. The same is true for 32.1mm/15.2mm = 2.11
-
Where are you getting these 1.96mm and 2.11mm measurements from? It's not from the PEP report. Let me show you why. Here's the PEP report excerpt you use:
133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)
30.4mm/15.5mm = 1.96. Notice that the result is a ratio, not a measurement, as the units in the denominator cancel out the units in the numerator. The same is true for 32.1mm/15.2mm = 2.11
Badda-Bing Badda-Boom.
-
Where are you getting these 1.96mm and 2.11mm measurements from? It's not from the PEP report. Let me show you why. Here's the PEP report excerpt you use:
133A gate bolt to screen=30.4 mm. scaling dist. =15.5mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm. scaling dist. =15.2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11 (6 HSCA 179)
30.4mm/15.5mm = 1.96. Notice that the result is a ratio, not a measurement, as the units in the denominator cancel out the units in the numerator. The same is true for 32.1mm/15.2mm = 2.11
Holy cow and LOL! Says the guy who repeatedly refused to acknowledge Dr. DiMaio's plain English that FMJ bullets don't fragment into dozens of tiny fragments and that x-rays that show numerous small fragments rule out FMJ ammo. It seems you are determined to provide another display of refusing to admit the obvious meaning of plain English (and even math).
If you would have bothered to read the paragraph in the PEP report that immediately precedes the measurements, which is the paragraph that introduces those measurements, you would have seen that they are not ratios but are measured vertical distances between the gate bolt and the screen in the backgrounds to determine the vertical parallax, and that the differences were adjusted for the scaling distance to account for the variations in magnification. Let's read that paragraph, shall we?
Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance
from the center of the dark horizontal object, which looks like it
might be a gate bolt or latch, to the bottom edge of the screen
of the screen door in the background. To establish scale, that is
to take into account differences in magnification, these measurements
were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the
left edge of the next, measured in a horizontal direction. This scaling
distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four that
appear to constitute the gate at the level of the lower edge of the
top horizontal member. The results are as follows: (6 HSCA 178-179)
And then come the measurements of the gate-bolt-to-screen distances in 133-A and 133-B. The 133-A distance is 1.96 mm. The 133-B distance is 2.11 mm. 2.11 minus 1.96 equals the vertical parallax of 0.15 mm.
And then, immediately after the measurements, in the paragraph that follows the measurements, we read that therefore "the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures," i.e., between 133-A and 133-B. This is why PEP member McCamy acknowledged that the difference between the vertical distances in the backgrounds was "very small," and this is why the PEP said the camera moved only "slightly" downward between these two exposures, 133-A and 133-B.
Can you guys ever admit anything? I mean, this is math. They determined the vertical parallax, the difference between the vertical position of the measured objects in the two backgrounds, by taking the raw vertical measurements and factoring in the scaling distance. And that difference was extremely tiny, which is why the PEP said the vertical difference was "very small" and that the camera moved only "slightly" downward between 133-A and 133-B.
But you guys can't even admit the reality of these basic math calculations and findings because you realize the implications of those calculations and findings, and you are so emotionally invested in believing the backyard photos are authentic that you even deny mathematical reality.
I mean, you could always claim that Marina Oswald simply got unbelievably lucky and just happened to achieve the cosmically amazing feat of returning the camera to virtually the exact same vertical position twice in a row after handing the camera back and forth to Lee so he could forward the film, and that Lee amazingly managed to return to the same spot twice in a row after putting down the rifle and the newspapers, taking the camera from Marina, forwarding the film, handing the camera back to Marina, picking up the rifle and newspapers again, and resuming his pose! You bet! Happens all the time! Well, or at least, once every million years, and this just happened to be that time!
But I guess you realize that such a claim is implausible in the extreme.