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.
-
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.
On CE133A the PEP's measurements were 30.4mm (gate latch) and 15.5mm ("dark horizontal object"). The corresponding measurements on CE133B were and 32.1mm and 15.2mm. The PEP then divided the gate latch measurement by the DHO measurement for each photo. Which results in the following mathematics:
30.4mm
CE133A: ----------- = 1.96
15.5mm
32.1mm
CE133B: ----------- = 2.11
15.2mm
Again, note that the units cancel out in the division: millimeters divided by millimeters always equals one, per basic mathematics. So 1.96 and 2.11 are both unitless ratios, ipso fact.
You would really avoid wasting everyone's time if you bothered to actually understand what you talk about. Especially the basic stuff. At least you could help yourself out by not doubling down when you bungle a simple mathematical expression. You'd also help yourself out even more by making an utter fool out of yourself by icing the cake by making idiotic statements like "the reality of these basic math calculations" when you don't actually understand the "basic math calculations" even after it's been pointed out to you that you've bungled the simple math underlying them.
-
On CE133A the PEP's measurements were 30.4mm (gate latch) and 15.5mm ("dark horizontal object"). The corresponding measurements on CE133B were and 32.1mm and 15.2mm. The PEP then divided the gate latch measurement by the DHO measurement for each photo. Which results in the following mathematics:
30.4mm
CE133A: ----------- = 1.96
15.5mm
32.1mm
CE133B: ----------- = 2.11
15.2mm
Again, note that the units cancel out in the division: millimeters divided by millimeters always equals one, per basic mathematics. So 1.96 and 2.11 are both unitless ratios, ipso fact.
You would really avoid wasting everyone's time if you bothered to actually understand what you talk about. Especially the basic stuff. At least you could help yourself out by not doubling down when you bungle a simple mathematical expression. You'd also help yourself out even more by making an utter fool out of yourself by icing the cake by making idiotic statements like "the reality of these basic math calculations" when you don't actually understand the "basic math calculations" even after it's been pointed out to you that you've bungled the simple math underlying them.
Oh my goodness. I have never seen anyone try to bluff their way like you're doing here. Your statements seem to be deliberately misleading, unless you honestly do not understand plain English. I notice you have simply ignored the PEP paragraph that introduces what they call the measurements that determined the vertical parallax. This is a repeat of your stunning refusal to acknowledge Dr. DiMaio's plain English about the behavior of FMJ bullets.
Do you know what "vertical parallax" means? If the PEP were just introducing ratios, where is the vertical parallax? IOW, where is the difference between the 133-A and the 133-B "MEASUREMENTS" (the PEP's term) if it's not in the calculation that follows the paragraph? Where is it? Huh?
Vertical parallax is "the vertical difference between corresponding points in two images." It is not a ratio: it is a measurement that is reached after factoring the scaling distance to account for any differences in magnification.
Let's read the PEP paragraph that introduces the vertical measurements again:
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.
Are we clear so far? They calculated the vertical parallax by measuring the vertical distance from the gate bolt to the bottom edge of the screen door. That is not a "ratio." That is a measurement, which is why they said they "MEASURED" the vertical distance to calculate the vertical parallax. You don't seem to understand what "parallax" means.
Let's continue as they explain that the scaling distance was considered to take into account the differences in magnification, so that the "MEASUREMENTS" were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next:
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)
"The results" for what? For the vertical parallax, i.e., the differences in the vertical distances between the measured objects in 133-A and 133-B. Let's read those results again, and notice that they give the raw measurements factored by the scaling distance and then state what that equals for each photo:
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)
The vertical parallax is 0.15 because the measured distances with the scaling distances factored in are 1.96 for 133-A and 2.11 for 133-B, and 2.11 minus 1.96 is 0.15. Vertical parallax is not a ratio: it is a measurement.
Not a blessed word about ratios in the PEP paragraph that introduces the calculations that determined the vertical parallax. They were talking about how they determined the vertical parallax. They factored in the scaling distance when calculating the measurements in order to determine the vertical parallax.
In order to determine the vertical parallax between corresponding points in two photos, you have to account for any differences in magnification. You do that just as the PEP: you pick other points and measure them horizontally.
If you answer nothing else, just answer two questions
1. Why do you suppose that the PEP said the vertical differences were "VERY SMALL" and that they showed that the camera moved only "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?
2. If the PEP were just introducing ratios, where is the vertical parallax stated? IOW, where is the vertical difference between the 133-A and the 133-B "MEASUREMENTS," if it's not in the calculations directly below the paragraph in question?
-
Oh my goodness. I have never seen anyone try to bluff their way like you're doing here. Your statements seem to be deliberately misleading, unless you honestly do not understand plain English. I notice you have simply ignored the PEP paragraph that introduces what they call the measurements that determined the vertical parallax. This is a repeat of your stunning refusal to acknowledge Dr. DiMaio's plain English about the behavior of FMJ bullets.
Do you know what "vertical parallax" means? If the PEP were just introducing ratios, where is the vertical parallax? IOW, where is the difference between the 133-A and the 133-B "MEASUREMENTS" (the PEP's term) if it's not in the calculation that follows the paragraph? Where is it? Huh?
Vertical parallax is "the vertical difference between corresponding points in two images." It is not a ratio: it is a measurement that is reached after factoring the scaling distance to account for any differences in magnification.
Let's read the PEP paragraph that introduces the vertical measurements again:
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.
Are we clear so far? They calculated the vertical parallax by measuring the vertical distance from the gate bolt to the bottom edge of the screen door. That is not a "ratio." That is a measurement, which is why they said they "MEASURED" the vertical distance to calculate the vertical parallax. You don't seem to understand what "parallax" means.
Let's continue as they explain that the scaling distance was considered to take into account the differences in magnification, so that the "MEASUREMENTS" were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next:
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)
"The results" for what? For the vertical parallax, i.e., the differences in the vertical distances between the measured objects in 133-A and 133-B. Let's read those results again, and notice that they give the raw measurements factored by the scaling distance and then state what that equals for each photo:
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)
The vertical parallax is 0.15 because the measured distances with the scaling distances factored in are 1.96 for 133-A and 2.11 for 133-B, and 2.11 minus 1.96 is 0.15. Vertical parallax is not a ratio: it is a measurement.
Not a blessed word about ratios in the PEP paragraph that introduces the calculations that determined the vertical parallax. They were talking about how they determined the vertical parallax. They factored in the scaling distance when calculating the measurements in order to determine the vertical parallax.
In order to determine the vertical parallax between corresponding points in two photos, you have to account for any differences in magnification. You do that just as the PEP: you pick other points and measure them horizontally.
If you answer nothing else, just answer two questions
1. Why do you suppose that the PEP said the vertical differences were "VERY SMALL" and that they showed that the camera moved only "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?
2. If the PEP were just introducing ratios, where is the vertical parallax stated? IOW, where is the vertical difference between the 133-A and the 133-B "MEASUREMENTS," if it's not in the calculations directly below the paragraph in question?
By what fiat have the Gods of Stupidity struck you senseless?! You quote the PEPs calculations that show that 1.96 and 2.11 are unitless ratios and not measurements or distances. In case you forgot, or maybe just have no idea what a ratio is, these are the ratio calculations that you've already quoted:
"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)"
30.4mm/15.5mm and 32.1mm/15.2mm are ratios. Period. The PEP uses the term "scale," which is a synonym of "ratio" in this context. I'm astounded you don't understand this. And, since the units cancel themselves out in the division, the results, 1.96 and 2.11, are unitless numbers and not distances. also, the difference of these two unitless numbers, 0.15, is also unitless. Period. You fail to grasp even basic mathematics. However, like any number of other fools, you try to compensate by ever-more sturm und drang to cover up the stench of your ignorance, and your stubborn foolishness to confront your own mistakes. The problem is, the rest of us see the whole sorry spectacle for what it is.
-
By what fiat have the Gods of Stupidity struck you senseless?! You quote the PEPs calculations that show that 1.96 and 2.11 are unitless ratios and not measurements or distances. In case you forgot, or maybe just have no idea what a ratio is, these are the ratio calculations that you've already quoted:
"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)"
30.4mm/15.5mm and 32.1mm/15.2mm are ratios. Period. The PEP uses the term "scale," which is a synonym of "ratio" in this context. I'm astounded you don't understand this. And, since the units cancel themselves out in the division, the results, 1.96 and 2.11, are unitless numbers and not distances. also, the difference of these two unitless numbers, 0.15, is also unitless. Period. You fail to grasp even basic mathematics. However, like any number of other fools, you try to compensate by ever-more sturm und drang to cover up the stench of your ignorance, and your stubborn foolishness to confront your won mistakes. The problem is, the rest of us see the whole sorry spectacle for what it is.
Won mistakes, or own mistakes?
-
Won mistakes, or own mistakes?
own, but he definitely won some kind of prize for that performance.
-
Since I have Michael on Eternal Ignore, I'm not quite following the debate, but paragraphs 442 and 444 of the PEP's report both explicitly refer to the measurements in question as "ratios." Ditto for paragraphs 432 and 433. If Michael is suggesting the difference between the ratios 1.96 and 2.11 is 15 mm, this is obviously ridiculous. How you actually compare two ratios is beyond my peewee mathematical abilities, but you don't subtract one from the other and declare the result in mm! :D All the measurements are showing is that the camera did in fact move - correct? More to the point, I find it difficult to believe the BYP are still being debated. Michael's threads remind me of visiting an oldies station and having to listen to Tommy James & The Shondells sing some dumbass song I hated when it first came out.
-
Since I have Michael on Eternal Ignore, I'm not quite following the debate, but paragraphs 442 and 444 of the PEP's report both explicitly refer to the measurements in question as "ratios." Ditto for paragraphs 432 and 433. If Michael is suggesting the difference between the ratios 1.96 and 2.11 is 15 mm, this is obviously ridiculous. How you actually compare two ratios is beyond my peewee mathematical abilities, but you don't subtract one from the other and declare the result in mm! :D All the measurements are showing is that the camera did in fact move - correct? More to the point, I find it difficult to believe the BYP are still being debated. Michael's threads remind me of visiting an oldies station and having to listen to Tommy James & The Shondells sing some dumbass song I hated when it first came out.
This whole discussion is unbelievable. Let's read those two paragraphs, shall we? "Ratios" refers to the scaling distances, which the PEP factored in to measure the horizontal and vertical parallax between 133-A and 133-B, and which was the basis of the panel's finding that there was horizontal and vertical camera movement between the two exposures. They factored in the scaling distances to account for the differences in magnification, as they explained in the paragraph that introduces the measurements that determined the vertical parallax.
Of course, when you're talking about scaling, yes, obviously, you're talking about ratio. But parallax is not a ratio. Parallax is the difference in the apparent position of objects viewed along two different lines of sight, in this case two different pictures of the same objects. You can Google it.
When dealing with photos, you apply the ratio of scaling to account for differences in magnification between the photos. Horizontal parallax is not a ratio. Vertical parallax is not a ratio. They are measurements of the distances between the same objects in two photos (or in two lines of sight). To determine the horizontal and vertical parallax in two photos, you factor in the scaling distance, i.e., you use the ratios of scale, to account for magnification variations in the photos, as the PEP explained in fairly plain English.
Before we read the two paragraphs you cite, let's keep in mind that the PEP said that their parallax measurements established that the camera moved only “slightly to the left” and only “slightly downward” between the two exposures, 133-A and 133-B, and that they found “very small” differences in the vertical distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416). Let's also remember that part of the cause of John Mytton's blunder was that he didn't realize the PEP took scale into account in their calculations.
Now, let's read the two paragraphs you cite:
(432) The panel determined that there had been horizontal camera movement. [How did the panel do this? Here's how]. It measured the difference in alinement between pictures of particular foreground and background objects. For example the prominent post in the foreground of each picture has a picket fence on both sides of it. The term "a" was designated as the distance from the left edge of the image of the post to the left edge of the left-hand picket at the end of the fence, "b" as the distance from the right edge of the image of the post to the right edge of the image of the right hand picket If the camera had moved between exposures the ratio of "b" to "a" should differ between viewpoints in different pictures
(433) This ratio was measured at three different heights on corresponding places on CE 133–A and B, and in all three instances a measurable difference was found. A similar technique was used with similar results to determine that there had also been vertical camera movement between pictures. (6 HSCA 175-176)
Did you catch that? By factoring in the ratio, i.e., the scaling distance (as they explain in paragraph 443), they found "a measurable difference," in horizontal positions, between the measured objects in the backgrounds. These statements, since are related to math, aren't quite as easy to understand as DiMaio's plain English statements about the behavior of FMJ bullets, but anyone with an adequate education should be able to grasp their meaning fairly easily.
Now let's read the PEP's paragraph that introduces the vertical parallax measurements:
(443) 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. (6 H 178-179)
Are we clear so far? What was calculated? "VERTICAL PARALLAX." Parallax is not a ratio. You may need to use ratios as part of your calculations to determine parallax, but parallax is a measurement of distance, not a ratio. You guys don't seem to understand what "parallax" means.
Let's continue as the PEP explains that the scaling distance, which of course involves ratio, was considered to take into account the differences in magnification, so that the "MEASUREMENTS" were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next:
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)
"The RESULTS." The "RESULTS" for what? For "VERTICAL PARALLAX." What does the term "results" mean when used in math? Here's what it means: "The final answer to a calculation and a proven mathematical statement." You can Google this too, if you don't believe me.
The very first sentence in the paragraph on vertical parallax, paragraph 443, tells us that we're being told how the PEP calculated the "VERTICAL PARALLAX." And in the process of calculating the "VERTICAL PARALLAX," what did they do to account for the differences in magnification? They established the scaling distance for each photo, which was different for each photo.
And then, in the last sentence of the paragraph, the PEP said, "The results are as follows." And here are the "the RESULTS" for the "VERTICAL PARALLAX":
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)
And what are "results" again when used in math? Let's read what Google AI says:
Numerical answer: The most common use is the number or value obtained after performing a mathematical operation or solving a problem.
Example: In the expression 3 x 6 + 1, the result is 19.
Synonyms: In this context, "result" is often used interchangeably with "answer" or "solution".
If those "results" are not the vertical parallax between the two photos, even though the PEP plainly said they are, where did the PEP state the vertical parallax, pray tell? Did they just forget to state it? Where is it?
And, leaving aside your refusal to acknowledge the plain meaning of the PEP's statements about the parallax measurements, are you guys ever going to address the fact that the PEP said those measurements proved that the camera moved only "SLIGHTLY" horizontally and vertically between exposures, and that the differences in the vertical parallax in the photos is "VERY SMALL"?
How in the world do you get only slight horizontal and vertical camera movement in photos taken in the manner in which the backyard rifle photos were allegedly taken? Such a feat would be difficult for a professional photographer using a modern camera to achieve. It would be impossible to achieve using a cheap handheld camera with a lever that had to be manually pushed downward to take the picture and with the camera being handed back and forth twice so the film could be forwarded.
-
This whole discussion is unbelievable. Let's read those two paragraphs, shall we? "Ratios" refers to the scaling distances, which the PEP factored in to measure the horizontal and vertical parallax between 133-A and 133-B, and which was the basis of the panel's finding that there was horizontal and vertical camera movement between the two exposures. They factored in the scaling distances to account for the differences in magnification, as they explained in the paragraph that introduces the measurements that determined the vertical parallax.
Of course, when you're talking about scaling, yes, obviously, you're talking about ratio. But parallax is not a ratio. Parallax is the difference in the apparent position of objects viewed along two different lines of sight, in this case two different pictures of the same objects. You can Google it.
When dealing with photos, you apply the ratio of scaling to account for differences in magnification between the photos. Horizontal parallax is not a ratio. Vertical parallax is not a ratio. They are measurements of the distances between the same objects in two photos (or in two lines of sight). To determine the horizontal and vertical parallax in two photos, you factor in the scaling distance, i.e., you use the ratios of scale, to account for magnification variations in the photos, as the PEP explained in fairly plain English.
Before we read the two paragraphs you cite, let's keep in mind that the PEP said that their parallax measurements established that the camera moved only “slightly to the left” and only “slightly downward” between the two exposures, 133-A and 133-B, and that they found “very small” differences in the vertical distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416). Let's also remember that part of the cause of John Mytton's blunder was that he didn't realize the PEP took scale into account in their calculations.
Now, let's read the two paragraphs you cite:
(432) The panel determined that there had been horizontal camera movement. [How did the panel do this? Here's how]. It measured the difference in alinement between pictures of particular foreground and background objects. For example the prominent post in the foreground of each picture has a picket fence on both sides of it. The term "a" was designated as the distance from the left edge of the image of the post to the left edge of the left-hand picket at the end of the fence, "b" as the distance from the right edge of the image of the post to the right edge of the image of the right hand picket If the camera had moved between exposures the ratio of "b" to "a" should differ between viewpoints in different pictures
(433) This ratio was measured at three different heights on corresponding places on CE 133–A and B, and in all three instances a measurable difference was found. A similar technique was used with similar results to determine that there had also been vertical camera movement between pictures. (6 HSCA 175-176)
Did you catch that? By factoring in the ratio, i.e., the scaling distance (as they explain in paragraph 443), they found "a measurable difference," in horizontal positions, between the measured objects in the backgrounds. These statements, since are related to math, aren't quite as easy to understand as DiMaio's plain English statements about the behavior of FMJ bullets, but anyone with an adequate education should be able to grasp their meaning fairly easily.
Now let's read the PEP's paragraph that introduces the vertical parallax measurements:
(443) 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. (6 H 178-179)
Are we clear so far? What was calculated? "VERTICAL PARALLAX." Parallax is not a ratio. You may need to use ratios as part of your calculations to determine parallax, but parallax is a measurement of distance, not a ratio. You guys don't seem to understand what "parallax" means.
Let's continue as the PEP explains that the scaling distance, which of course involves ratio, was considered to take into account the differences in magnification, so that the "MEASUREMENTS" were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next:
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)
"The RESULTS." The "RESULTS" for what? For "VERTICAL PARALLAX." What does the term "results" mean when used in math? Here's what it means: "The final answer to a calculation and a proven mathematical statement." You can Google this too, if you don't believe me.
The very first sentence in the paragraph on vertical parallax, paragraph 443, tells us that we're being told how the PEP calculated the "VERTICAL PARALLAX." And in the process of calculating the "VERTICAL PARALLAX," what did they do to account for the differences in magnification? They established the scaling distance for each photo, which was different for each photo.
And then, in the last sentence of the paragraph, the PEP said, "The results are as follows." And here are the "the RESULTS" for the "VERTICAL PARALLAX":
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)
And what are "results" again when used in math? Let's read what Google AI says:
Numerical answer: The most common use is the number or value obtained after performing a mathematical operation or solving a problem.
Example: In the expression 3 x 6 + 1, the result is 19.
Synonyms: In this context, "result" is often used interchangeably with "answer" or "solution".
If those "results" are not the vertical parallax between the two photos, even though the PEP plainly said they are, where did the PEP state the vertical parallax, pray tell? Did they just forget to state it? Where is it?
And, leaving aside your refusal to acknowledge the plain meaning of the PEP's statements about the parallax measurements, are you guys ever going to address the fact that the PEP said those measurements proved that the camera moved only "SLIGHTLY" horizontally and vertically between exposures, and that the differences in the vertical parallax in the photos is "VERY SMALL"?
How in the world do you get only slight horizontal and vertical camera movement in photos taken in the manner in which the backyard rifle photos were allegedly taken? Such a feat would be difficult for a professional photographer using a modern camera to achieve. It would be impossible to achieve using a cheap handheld camera with a lever that had to be manually pushed downward to take the picture and with the camera being handed back and forth twice so the film could be forwarded.
1.) The PEP brought up the parallax issue in response to the allegations "that the backgrounds in these pictures are identical and that three differently posed subjects had been superimposed on copies of one background picture." But any difference in parallax completely destroys any notion that the backgrounds are identical, even if the difference is "very small."
2.) The point I made, which is the subject of this particular subthread, is that the PEP calculated values 1.96 and 2.11 are neither measurements nor calculated distances, but unitless ratios. This should be trivially obvious on even cursory examination of the mathematical expressions by which they were calculated.
I look forward to seeing how many more words you are willing to send into horrific mass slaughter this time, all in order to defend what is simply indefensible. I will mourn their pointless deaths in the face of vain futility, but I will savor the schadenfreude nonetheless.
-
1.) The PEP brought up the parallax issue in response to the allegations "that the backgrounds in these pictures are identical and that three differently posed subjects had been superimposed on copies of one background picture." But any difference in parallax completely destroys any notion that the backgrounds are identical, even if the difference is "very small."
One, you still don't seem to understand what "parallax" means. "Any difference in parallax"? What you should have said is "Any parallax." The term "parallax" means a difference in an object's position when viewed from two different perspectives. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Google AI:
Vertical parallax is the vertical separation between two homologous points in a stereopair of images. In optical and surveying contexts, vertical parallax must typically be eliminated to achieve a clear, stereoscopic view because it can cause eye strain and inaccurate depth perception.
Or maybe you'll believe the University of Kansas:
Horizontal parallax describes the horizontal separation between two homologous points. . . .
Vertical parallax describes the vertical separation between two homologous points. (https://people.eecs.ku.edu/~jrmiller/Stereo/Section_05/Page_0020.php)
Two, the tiny parallax that the PEP detected does not prove the backgrounds are not the same. Simply slightly key-stoning the same background for three pictures could create the very small parallax that the PEP detected, which the PEP could only detect with computer-aided measurements and with high-magnification analysis, because the differences in distances between the background objects are too small to discern with the naked eye.
2.) The point I made, which is the subject of this particular subthread, is that the PEP calculated values 1.96 and 2.11 are neither measurements nor calculated distances, but unitless ratios. This should be trivially obvious on even cursory examination of the mathematical expressions by which they were calculated.
Okay, then where are the measurements that specify the vertical parallax? The paragraph that introduces the numbers in question says the measurements were done to calculate vertical parallax:
Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance from the center of the dark horizontal object to the bottom edge of the screen of the screen door in the background. . . . The results are as follows: (6 HSCA 178-179)
I trust you know what the term "results" means when used in a math context, right? Right? Yes?
So, again, where are "the results" of the "measuring" when "vertical parallax was calculated"? What was the vertical parallax? What was the difference in cm or mm between the measured vertical distances? Where is this crucial information?
Give me the paragraph and page number in the PEP report. This should be really easy, unless you're going to argue that the PEP inexplicably "forgot" to provide the vertical parallax, i.e., the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical measurements, or, even worse, that they withheld this crucial datum. When you go looking for the vertical parallax, keep in mind that, by definition, parallax in photos is the difference in distances between background objects when viewed from two different perspectives.
I look forward to seeing how many more words you are willing to send into horrific mass slaughter this time, all in order to defend what is simply indefensible. I will mourn their pointless deaths in the face of vain futility, but I will savor the schadenfreude nonetheless.
And I look forward to seeing you tell all of us where the vertical parallax is given in the report, if it is not included in "the results" that the PEP said came when "vertical parallax was calculated."
Here's a golden opportunity for you to quit your usual ducking and dodging and your usual act of refusing to acknowledge the meaning of key terms--you know, like "measuring," "measurements," "parallax," and "results." Here's your chance to blow me out of the water.
All you gotta do is tell me where the vertical parallax is given in the PEP report. You know, like "the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical measurements is X mm/cm." Or, just like "the 133-A vertical distance between the measured points is X mm/cm, and the 133-B vertical distance between the measured points is X mm/cm," so we can easily determine the vertical parallax.
And while you're at it, it would be extra nice if you would explain how photos taken with a cheap top-view camera with a lever for a button and with the camera allegedly handed back and forth twice so Oswald could forward the film--how those photos could contain such tiny differences in the distances between the background objects and could indicate only "slight" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
For the sake of any newcomers and guests, we're talking about the fact that the PEP attempted to explain the apparent sameness of the backgrounds by announcing that their photogrammetric measurements found that the camera moved “slightly to the left” and “slightly downward” between exposures, and that the camera’s vertical movement was “very small” (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416).
In doing this, the PEP inadvertently provided strong evidence of forgery in the photos, because the camera’s horizontal and vertical movement would have been much greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story. If these photos had been taken by twice handing the camera back and forth and with a camera that had a lever that had to be physically pushed down to take a photo, the differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds would be much larger, would not be invisible to the naked eye, and would not be undetectable without computer-aided photogrammetric measurements and the use of microscopes.
The PEP had to use computer-aided photogrammetric measurements and microscopes/high magnification to detect the camera’s slight horizontal and vertical movement and the tiny differences in horizontal and vertical distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos 133-A and 133-B.
In doing the photogrammetric measurements to detect parallax, the PEP performed “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also performed “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” (2 HSCA 398, 405).
Why? Because the tiny differences in the distances between background objects are invisible to the naked eye and can only be discerned with computer-aided and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements.
-
One, you still don't seem to understand what "parallax" means. "Any difference in parallax"? What you should have said is "Any parallax." The term "parallax" means a difference in an object's position when viewed from two different perspectives. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Google AI:
Vertical parallax is the vertical separation between two homologous points in a stereopair of images. In optical and surveying contexts, vertical parallax must typically be eliminated to achieve a clear, stereoscopic view because it can cause eye strain and inaccurate depth perception.
Or maybe you'll believe the University of Kansas:
Horizontal parallax describes the horizontal separation between two homologous points. . . .
Vertical parallax describes the vertical separation between two homologous points. (https://people.eecs.ku.edu/~jrmiller/Stereo/Section_05/Page_0020.php)
Two, the tiny parallax that the PEP detected does not prove the backgrounds are not the same. Simply slightly key-stoning the same background for three pictures could create the very small parallax that the PEP detected, which the PEP could only detect with computer-aided measurements and with high-magnification analysis, because the differences in distances between the background objects are too small to discern with the naked eye.
Okay, then where are the vertical parallax measurements? The paragraph that introduces the numbers in question says the measurements were done to calculate vertical parallax:
Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance from the center of the dark horizontal object to the bottom edge of the screen of the screen door in the background. . . . The results are as follows: (6 HSCA 178-179)
I trust you know what the term "results" means when used in a math context, right? Right? Yes?
So, again, where are "the results" of the "measuring" when "vertical parallax was calculated"? Where are they?
Give me the paragraph and page number in the PEP report. This should be really easy, unless you're going to argue that the PEP inexplicably "forgot" to provide the parallax measurements. When you go looking for those measurements, keep in mind that, by definition, parallax in photos is the difference in distances between background objects when viewed from two different perspectives.
And I look forward to seeing you tell all of us where the vertical parallax measurements are given in the report, if they are not "the results" that the PEP said came when "vertical parallax was calculated."
Here's a golden opportunity for you to quit your usual ducking and dodging and your usual act of refusing to acknowledge the meaning of key terms--you know, like "measuring," "measurements," "parallax," and "results." Here's your chance to blow me out of the water. All you gotta do is tell me where the vertical parallax measurements are given in the PEP report.
And for the sake of any newcomers and guests, we're talking about the fact that the PEP attempted to explain the apparent sameness of the backgrounds by announcing that their photogrammetric measurements found that the camera moved “slightly to the left” and “slightly downward” between exposures, and that the camera’s vertical movement was “very small” (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416).
In doing this, the PEP inadvertently provided strong evidence of forgery in the photos, because the camera’s horizontal and vertical movement would have been much greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story. If these photos had been taken by twice handing the camera back and forth and with a camera that had a lever that had to be physically pushed down to take a photo, the differences in the distances between objects in the backgrounds would be much larger, would not be invisible to the naked eye, and would not be undetectable without computer-aided photogrammetric measurements and the use of microscopes.
The PEP had to use computer-aided photogrammetric measurements and microscopes/high magnification to detect the camera’s slight horizontal and vertical movement and the tiny differences in horizontal and vertical distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos 133-A and 133-B.
In doing the photogrammetric measurements to detect parallax, the PEP performed “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also performed “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” (2 HSCA 398, 405).
Why? Because the tiny differences in the distances between background objects are invisible to the naked eye and can only be discerned with computer-aided and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements.
Wow!!
Griffith, your thread title has backfired badly and your usual stupidity has been magnified by a factor of ten. Your continued pathetic amateur childlike analysis of the photo and film record is a perfect example of a classic Delusional Brainless Kook, and these meaningless excessively wordy responses in your weak attempt to bluff your way out of your bottomless pit is simply embarrassing.
BTW your latest Kooky assertion that "the tiny differences in the distances between background objects are invisible to the naked eye and can only be discerned with computer-aided and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements" is easily disproven, as the following example shows the difference between the gate and the screen door beyond is actually very visible! Hahahhahahaha.
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs6x3DQx/Parallax-HSCA-gate-latch-to-screen-door.gif)
JohnM
-
In the following GIF I lined up 3 palings of the fence and as can be easily seen and therefore not invisible to the naked eye, there is literally a bazillion parallax changes, the building, the window and the roof behind all shift, in addition the stairs and supporting post show major perspective changes as do the other objects on the right side, the windows and shutter also demonstrate this difference in the various camera locations.
Anyway, at the end of the day, the HSCA set out to refute the early backyard photo critics who alleged that a single background plate and basic keystone distortion was utilized for all of Oswald's Neely street photos but as can be seen in the following animation each background was taken from a unique location.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsSfQrh/griffithsnightmare.gif)
BTW, even the three fence palings I stabilized, show a perspective shift.
JohnM
-
Excellent work by John and Mitch on this thread to debunk Michael Griffith's parade of backyard photo nonsense. By the way Michael : since the photos are fake, how is it that Oswald gave an autographed copy of one of them to George DeMohrenschildt?
-
Propinquity, Michael's posts are all about propinquity. Keep that in mind and they start to make sense. :D
I see that Michael has been beating this same dead horse for more than 30 years. The exact same dead horse. Hence my reference to Michael's posts being the equivalent of an oldies station, with Michael in the role of Tommy James albeit without the Shondells.
GOOD GRIEF, the issue is clearly set out in the HSCA testimony of Calvin S. McCamy, at page 416: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0210b.htm.
He clearly explained that the PEP had determined two RATIOS. Then, "We find that the [horizontal] ratio is different on these two photographs, indicating that there has been a small change in the camera position from one photograph to the next."
DUH.
Then, "We apply the same kind of principle in the vertical direction." Ratios are determined "So that mere scale wouldn't change these things." Finally, "Again we find that there has been some vertical movement also, very small, but it is there." This showed that "the camera had been moved" and "the background was real."
DOUBLE DUH.
Michael apparently wants to interpret "small" and "very small" as "infinitesimally, impossibly small." OK, be my guest. OK, Marina didn't climb on the roof to take the second photo. I don't know how mathematically relevant it is, but the percentage difference between the two ratios is slightly more than 9%.
I can at least understand Michael - he's nuts. Unlike Jim Garrison, whom Tom Bethell distinguished from most CTers by having a sense of humor about his own nutty theories, Michael is the worst kind of CTer: Deadly, grimly serious.
Michael is not your goofy neighbor Vern who says the earth is flat, wink wink, nudge nudge, we're just having fun here. No, Michael is the scary guy who actually thinks the earth is flat.
Why do people keep arguing with loons like this as though they were arguing with rational people? Is there some fear that Michael's lunacy and Morley's lunacy and DiEugenio's lunacy and All the Others' Lunacy is actually influencing hordes of people or is going to change the verdict of history? I am increasingly starting to see those who continually engage with folks like Michael, Morley and DiEugenio as almost as unhinged as they are.
Whew, I think I'm done! I'm going back into the Factoid-Buster Cave and watch reruns of Andy Griffith because I'm starting to question my own sanity. At least I've had the excuse of near-terminal boredom while my Achilles heals.
-
BTW your latest Kooky assertion that "the tiny differences in the distances between background objects are invisible to the naked eye and can only be discerned with computer-aided and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements" is easily disproven, as the following example shows the difference between the gate and the screen door beyond is actually very visible! Hahahhahahaha.
JohnM
Oh, really?! The differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?! Really?! Well, could you explain, then, why the PEP experts could only detect them with computer-aid and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements? You might want to read the PEP report and Kirk and McCamy's testimony before you repeat this howler again.
Readers should keep in mind that you still have not repudiated your hilarious claim that the PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos. How could that be when the PEP admitted that their photogrammetric measurements showed the camera only moved "SLIGHTLY to the left" and "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?
Also, you still haven't admitted that you didn't realize the PEP factored in scaling distances in their calculations of their photogrammetric measurements to identify horizontal and vertical parallax. Remember when you claimed, repeatedly, that when the measurements were adjusted for scale, they proved there was "massive parallax"? Remember?
After reading your two latest replies, if I were a lone-gunman theorist, I wouldn't touch your claims with 10-foot pole. You are an absolute quack, and a rather rude one at that.
Finally, I'm still waiting for you, or Mitch Todd, or Lance Payette to tell us the paragraph or page number in the PEP report where we can find the vertical parallax, the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical measurements. Where is this crucial info in the report? This should be an easy question to answer, especially since only one determination was used to establish vertical parallax (whereas three determinations were used to identify horizontal parallax).
-
Oh, really?! The differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?! Really?! Well, could you explain, then, why the PEP experts could only detect them with computer-aid and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements? You might want to read the PEP report and Kirk and McCamy's testimony before you repeat this howler again.
Readers should keep in mind that you still have not repudiated your hilarious claim that the PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos. How could that be when the PEP admitted that their photogrammetric measurements showed the camera only moved "SLIGHTLY to the left" and "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?
Also, you still haven't admitted that you didn't realize the PEP factored in scaling distances in their calculations of their photogrammetric measurements to identify horizontal and vertical parallax. Remember when you claimed, repeatedly, that when the measurements were adjusted for scale, they proved there was "massive parallax"? Remember?
After reading your two latest replies, if I were a lone-gunman theorist, I wouldn't touch your claims with 10-foot pole. You are an absolute quack, and a rather rude one at that.
Finally, I'm still waiting for you, or Mitch Todd, or Lance Payette to tell us the paragraph or page number in the PEP report where we can find the vertical parallax, the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical measurements. Where is this crucial info in the report? This should be an easy question to answer, especially since only one determination was used to establish vertical parallax (whereas three determinations were used to identify horizontal parallax).
Sorry Griffith, but the same HSCA Photo Panel that you have so much confidence in, "found no evidence whatsoever of any kind of faking in these photographs". Oops.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, and Sergeant Kirk, I would like to ask you both, what was the panel's conclusion regarding the backyard pictures showing Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle and the revolver and the militant newspapers?'
Mr. McCAMY. We found no evidence whatsoever of any kind of faking in these photographs.
Just accept the fact that just after Oswald received his rifle and revolver, and just before his attempted assassination of General Walker, Oswald had his photo taken with his new toys!
Also consider that many months before the JFK assassination your fake backyard templates must have been taken, which can be seen by the considerable new growth in the plant to Oswald's left. Therefore to believe in some massive conspiracy, your conspirators crept into Oswald's backyard about eight months before Kennedy was scheduled to be in Dallas and took three separate photos and at some other time took three photos of Oswald's head with the exact same lighting conditions, the exact same camera, the exact same distance to subject is necessary because of the consistent film grain and finally because of lens distortion Oswald's head must be framed in precisely the exact same position within the photo and magically composited them all together?? As if!!
(https://i.postimg.cc/HLd026qK/osw-ald-backyard-plant-growth.gif)
One of the many problems to be accounted for with compositing is matching the film grain in the Oswald composite head, the distance to camera needs to be precisely the same as the stand-in and background because any slight depth deviation will have a negative impact with the spacing of the film grain.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jq6DS41C/Oswald-head-film-grain.jpg)
Due to the varying locations of Oswald's head within the camera frame and the camera angle, the shape of his head is influenced by the "wide angle effect", the following extract from the HSCA's Photo Panel report fully explains this concept. The thoroughness of the HSCA's in depth analysis is the reason why wannabe's like "photo expert" Thompson completely deferred to this superior examination.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QR7L2zc/HSCA-head-elongation-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvywHyYL/HSCA-head-elongation-1a.jpg)
Here is CE133B taken directly from the original negative and thus shows the full frame and CE133A which similarly shows the full frame, and the difference of the placement within these frames of Oswald's head is easily seen. So the simple layman's explanation of the above information is compositing Oswald's head is magnitudes of complexity more difficult than simply cut and pasting, and requires a virtually impossible set of circumstances to align.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Cx4yZzgs/CE-133-A-133-B.jpg)
And lastly, when questioned about Neely street, Oswald "even denied living there"! I wonder why? LOL.
Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the Neely Street address and he denied that address. He denied having a picture made over there and he even denied living there. I told him he had people who visited him over there and he said they were just wrong about visiting.
JohnM
-
Oh, really?! The differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?! Really?! Well, could you explain, then, why the PEP experts could only detect them with computer-aid and microscope-aided photogrammetric measurements? You might want to read the PEP report and Kirk and McCamy's testimony before you repeat this howler again.
Readers should keep in mind that you still have not repudiated your hilarious claim that the PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos. How could that be when the PEP admitted that their photogrammetric measurements showed the camera only moved "SLIGHTLY to the left" and "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures?
Are you blind? The following comparison shows the massive amounts of parallax movement between CE133A and CE133B which just happens to be very visible to the naked eye, do you even know what parallax means?
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsSfQrh/griffithsnightmare.gif)
Look carefully at this HSCA Exhibit, the scale on the side shows distances in millimetres and considering the measurements the HSCA used, the photo here appears to be slightly smaller than the photo used for the parallax distances and taking into account the fact that the HSCA photo experts further sub divided a millimetre by a factor of ten, then by necessity the usage of a microscope would be the only way to see such tiny differences in a tiny photo but getting to the point, how you extrapolate this to infer that the overall distances are invisible to the human eye is self serving nonsense. The above GIF comparison showing clear parallax is self explanatory.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pV3VtGxc/HSCA-133-A-Stovall.jpg)
BTW, where does your theory go? The HSCA defined that the backyard photos were taken from different locations and gave a very vague camera movement of ""SLIGHTLY to the left" and "SLIGHTLY downward" between the two exposures", which doesn't exactly help your allegation of fakery because someone standing in the one position would produce consecutive photographs which would clearly satisfy that criteria. How in your own words would you describe an alternate conspiratorial narrative that fits your belief system and don't forget that the HSCA ruled out a tripod, that there was an obvious learning process between shots and the length of time between photos can be timed by the movement of shadows, all of which just happens to fit the known sequence of events.
JohnM
-
Finally, I'm still waiting for you, or Mitch Todd, or Lance Payette to tell us the paragraph or page number in the PEP report where we can find the vertical parallax, the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical measurements. Where is this crucial info in the report? This should be an easy question to answer, especially since only one determination was used to establish vertical parallax (whereas three determinations were used to identify horizontal parallax).
We don't need to. All the PEP needed to do was show that there was any parallax at all in order to prove that the backgrounds in the different CE133s are not identical. You're just trying to move the goalposts now that your original argument collapsed.
-
We don't need to. All the PEP needed to do was show that there was any parallax at all in order to prove that the backgrounds in the different CE133s are not identical. You're just trying to move the goalposts now that your original argument collapsed.
This previous Griffith reply shows that he has no idea of exactly what is a parallax shift, he endorses that the differences between background objects are the result of very slight keystoning which is completely absurd and totally at odds with the HSCA measurements and my GIFs shown above.
You know that critics say that the same backgrounds were used but that they were very slightly keystoned to produce the appearance of differences between background-object distances, as Malcolm Thompson noted.
Here is an example of keystoning which in the past would be accomplished by tilting the negative and/or easel but nowadays is done simply in photoshop. But whichever way it's done the ratios between background objects in each photo as compared to its keystoned counterpart will remain constant but as seen in the backyard photos CE133A & CE133B this ratio is different therefore proving that parallax movement between objects has occurred.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYW6nGPp/building-keystone.jpg)
JohnM
-
Michael Griffith: Finally, I'm still waiting for you, or Mitch Todd, or Lance Payette to tell us the paragraph or page number in the PEP report where we can find the vertical parallax, the difference between the 133-A and 133-B vertical measurements. Where is this crucial info in the report? This should be an easy question to answer, especially since only one determination was used to establish vertical parallax (whereas three determinations were used to identify horizontal parallax).
We don't need to.
You mean you can't. And you know it.
This is revealing: I have merely asked you to cite the paragraph and/or page number where the vertical parallax numbers are given. You deny they are the numbers that immediately follow the clearly introductory paragraph that explains how the vertical parallax was measured and calculated and then says "The results are as follows."
I'm saying, Okay, then if those numbers aren't the vertical parallax numbers, where are they? Did the panel just forget to provide them? Did they withhold them? And your answer is "I don't need to tell you. You're just moving the goal posts."
BTW, do you endorse John Mytton's argument that the differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?
All the PEP needed to do was show that there was any parallax at all in order to prove that the backgrounds in the different CE133s are not identical.
Well, I see at least you're using the word "parallax" correctly now. Anyway, one, the demonstration of parallax does not automatically prove the backgrounds are not the same. Two, having said this, my position does not require that the backgrounds are the same, since a tripod-mounted camera could have produced photos that would exhibit only slight camera movement. Three, the horizontal and vertical parallax would be much greater if the photos had been taken by a cheap handheld camera with a lever for a button with the camera being handed back and forth twice to forward the film.
And did you notice that the PEP did not even address the issue of diagonal camera movement? We are left to make the extremely unlikely assumption that the camera never moved even a few millimeters diagonally after being handed back and forth twice.
You're just trying to move the goalposts now that your original argument collapsed.
The core of my original argument is the same argument I've been making for years: that the PEP found extremely tiny differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos and acknowledged that these differences proved the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and downward between exposures, and that the differences in distances and camera movement would be far greater if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged by the official story.
Sorry Griffith, but the same HSCA Photo Panel that you have so much confidence in, "found no evidence whatsoever of any kind of faking in these photographs". Oops.
This is more of your silliness, quackery, and deception. The whole point of my article is that the HSCA photo panel ignored or gave lame explanations for clear evidence of fakery in the backyard photos. Have you still not read my article? Is that it?
And let me guess: You're going to say nothing about your hilarious claim that the differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the human eye, right? That claim shows you have no clue what you are talking about and don't understand even the basics about the PEP's photogrammetric measurements.
And let me further guess: You're going to say nothing about your bogus claim that when the PEP's measurements are adjusted for scale, they prove there is "massive parallax" in the photos, right? Somehow you missed the fact that the measurement were adjusted for scale with scaling distances, which are even shown, by name, in the calculations for vertical parallax (yes, I'm dismissing Mitch Todd's ridiculous argument that those numbers are all merely ratios and that they do not include the vertical parallax measurements).
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. McCamy, and Sergeant Kirk, I would like to ask you both, what was the panel's conclusion regarding the backyard pictures showing Lee Harvey Oswald with the rifle and the revolver and the militant newspapers?'
Mr. McCAMY. We found no evidence whatsoever of any kind of faking in these photographs.
But they did find evidence of faking--they simply refused to admit it. They dismissed the nearly perfectly straight line across the chin as the edge of a watermark, a laughable explanation. Their attempt to reenact the variant shadows in the photos failed miserably, and when Congressman Fithian called them out on it, they fell back on the bogus argument that their one-dimensional vanishing point analysis explained the variant shadows, an erroneous proposition that was rejected by every photographic expert I interviewed.
BTW, I'm curious: Do you therefore also accept the PEP's finding that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor sniper's window within 2 minutes after the assassination, which of course would rule out Oswald as the one moving the boxes? And do you accept the PEP's finding that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit at or just before Z190, i.e., at a time when the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree?
Just accept the fact that just after Oswald received his rifle and revolver, and just before his attempted assassination of General Walker, Oswald had his photo taken with his new toys!
How about, instead, you accept the fact that before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said she never even saw Oswald carrying or holding a rifle, and that in later years she insisted, in a recorded interview, that she did not take the backyard rifle photos? How about that?
How about if you accept the fact that the FBI could no evidence that Oswald ever picked up the rifle from the post office, and that no "Hidell" was authorized to pick up mail delivered to Oswald's post office box? How about that?
How about if you accept the fact that there is not one shred of credible evidence that Oswald fired at General Walker, that the only eyewitness said neither of the two men he saw looked like Oswald, and that Walker himself insisted that the bullet that was recovered from his house was not the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used?
Also consider that many months before the JFK assassination your fake backyard templates must have been taken, which can be seen by the considerable new growth in the plant to Oswald's left. Therefore to believe in some massive conspiracy, your conspirators crept into Oswald's backyard about eight months before Kennedy was scheduled to be in Dallas and took three separate photos and at some other time took three photos of Oswald's head with the exact same lighting conditions, the exact same camera, the exact same distance to subject is necessary because of the consistent film grain and finally because of lens distortion Oswald's head must be framed in precisely the exact same position within the photo and magically composited them all together?? As if!!
Another one of your elaborate strawman scenarios that ignores the available evidence.
BTW, are you aware that in 1992 two manipulated backyard prints were released from Dallas police files, and that they show the white silhouette of a human figure where Oswald is supposed to be? Are you aware that Robert Hester, a Dallas photographer who helped process assassination-related film for the Dallas police and the FBI on 11/22/63, said he saw an FBI agent with a transparency of one of the backyard photos on 11/22, which was the day before the police said they "found" the photos? Also, Hester said that one of the backyard photos he processed showed no figure in the picture, just like the doctored print released by Dallas authorities in 1992. Gee, what a coincidence, hey?
One of the many problems to be accounted for with compositing is matching the film grain in the Oswald composite head, the distance to camera needs to be precisely the same as the stand-in and background because any slight depth deviation will have a negative impact with the spacing of the film grain.
I've already answered this argument. You repeat the same arguments over and over without dealing with counter arguments that have been made to you.
Due to the varying locations of Oswald's head within the camera frame and the camera angle, the shape of his head is influenced by the "wide angle effect", the following extract from the HSCA's Photo Panel report fully explains this concept. The thoroughness of the HSCA's in depth analysis is the reason why wannabe's like "photo expert" Thompson completely deferred to this superior examination.
Wrong again. One, Thompson rejected the PEP's explanation for the differing chins and argued that a photocopied composite would probably pass the tests applied by the PEP. Two, Thompson was hardly a "wannabe photo expert." Thompson was the chief of the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an ex-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.
I must say, it says much about your credibility that you would call Malcolm Thompson a "wannabe photo expert." Given your record of egregious blunders on the backyard photos, you of all people are in no position to be casting doubt on Thompson's sterling credentials.
And, again, since you speak so glowingly of the HSCA PEP, do you therefore accept their conclusions about the rearranging of boxes in the sniper's nest within 2 minutes after the shooting, and about the timing of the first hit on JFK (i.e., at a time when Oswald would have been unable to see JFK due to the oak tree)?
Here is CE133B taken directly from the original negative and thus shows the full frame and CE133A which similarly shows the full frame, and the difference of the placement within these frames of Oswald's head is easily seen. So the simple layman's explanation of the above information is compositing Oswald's head is magnitudes of complexity more difficult than simply cut and pasting, and requires a virtually impossible set of circumstances to align.
Uh-huh. This is more of your pseudo-scholarship. Tell me, why do you suppose the PEP withheld the Penrose measurements for the chin? Huh? They knew the chin had long been identified as a suspicious area, yet they withheld the Penrose measurements for it. I discuss this glaring omission in my article, which you might want to break down and read sometime.
Also, can you find me a photography professional who will endorse the PEP's claim that the nearly straight line across the backyard figure's chin is merely the edge of a watermark? Not one of the photographic experts I interviewed bought this claim. Here's a challenge for you: Take an eye dropper, put water in it, and drop a drop of water on a photo one hundred times, and tell me if a single one of the water drops has an edge that forms a nearly straight line. Good luck.
Furthermore, why do you suppose the PEP did not touch the issue of diagonal movement of the camera? Huh? I suspect that they did look at it and found no diagonal movement, and that they decided it would be wise to remain silent on the issue, since they likely figured that at least a few people would realize it would be wildly unlikely that the camera's diagonal position would not change at least slightly after being handed back and forth twice.
I have a theory about the PEP, and I freely admit it is pure speculation, but I think it makes sense given their performance: I think the PEP was only willing to go so far in acknowledging evidence that they knew was problematic for the lone-gunman theory, because they knew that the Select Committee members were only willing to go so far in accepting evidence of conspiracy. I think the PEP guys knew the backyard photos were fake and that there were serious anomalies in the autopsy photos, but that they were unwilling to say so. I think one or two of them dropped hints that the backyard photos were fake. They were willing to admit that the first hit occurred at or before Z190 and that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting, but I think that was as far as they were willing to go.
And lastly, when questioned about Neely street, Oswald "even denied living there"! I wonder why? LOL.
Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the Neely Street address and he denied that address. He denied having a picture made over there and he even denied living there. I told him he had people who visited him over there and he said they were just wrong about visiting. JohnM
And, needless to say, it never occurred to you to consider the possibility that the thoroughly corrupt Captain J.W. Fritz would misrepresent what Oswald said, right? Why do you suppose Fritz failed to record even one minute of Oswald's hours of interrogation, not even with a stenographer? Why do you suppose he refused Oswald the basic right of having a defense attorney present during his interrogations? Why do you suppose the DPD lied about the results of the paraffin test on Oswald's right cheek?
(We now know that the FBI had the paraffin cast subjected to NAA testing and found no chemical traces that Oswald had a fired a rifle, and that the FBI even had a control test done to ensure the accuracy of the NAA results.)
-
You mean you can't. And you know it.
This is revealing: I have merely asked you to cite the paragraph and/or page number where the vertical parallax numbers are given. You deny they are the numbers that immediately follow the clearly introductory paragraph that explains how the vertical parallax was measured and calculated and then says "The results are as follows."
I'm saying, Okay, then if those numbers aren't the vertical parallax numbers, where are they? Did the panel just forget to provide them? Did they withhold them? And your answer is "I don't need to tell you. You're just moving the goal posts."
BTW, do you endorse John Mytton's argument that the differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?
Well, I see at least you're using the word "parallax" correctly now. Anyway, one, the demonstration of parallax does not automatically prove the backgrounds are not the same. Two, having said this, my position does not require that the backgrounds are the same, since a tripod-mounted camera could have produced photos that would exhibit only slight camera movement. Three, the horizontal and vertical parallax would be much greater if the photos had been taken by a cheap handheld camera with a lever for a button with the camera being handed back and forth twice to forward the film.
And did you notice that the PEP did not even address the issue of diagonal camera movement? We are left to make the extremely unlikely assumption that the camera never moved even a few millimeters diagonally after being handed back and forth twice.
The core of my original argument is the same argument I've been making for years: that the PEP found extremely tiny differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos and acknowledged that these differences proved the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and downward between exposures, and that the differences in distances and camera movement would be far greater if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged by the official story.
This is more of your silliness, quackery, and deception. The whole point of my article is that the HSCA photo panel ignored or gave lame explanations for clear evidence of fakery in the backyard photos. Have you still not read my article? Is that it?
And let me guess: You're going to say nothing about your hilarious claim that the differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the human eye, right? That claim shows you have no clue what you are talking about and don't understand even the basics about the PEP's photogrammetric measurements.
And let me further guess: You're going to say nothing about your bogus claim that when the PEP's measurements are adjusted for scale, they prove there is "massive parallax" in the photos, right? Somehow you missed the fact that the measurement were adjusted for scale with scaling distances, which are even shown, by name, in the calculations for vertical parallax (yes, I'm dismissing Mitch Todd's ridiculous argument that those numbers are all merely ratios and that they do not include the vertical parallax measurements).
But they did find evidence of faking--they simply refused to admit it. They dismissed the nearly perfectly straight line across the chin as the edge of a watermark, a laughable explanation. Their attempt to reenact the variant shadows in the photos failed miserably, and when Congressman Fithian called them out on it, they fell back on the bogus argument that their one-dimensional vanishing point analysis explained the variant shadows, an erroneous proposition that was rejected by every photographic expert I interviewed.
BTW, I'm curious: Do you therefore also accept the PEP's finding that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor sniper's window within 2 minutes after the assassination, which of course would rule out Oswald as the one moving the boxes? And do you accept the PEP's finding that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit at or just before Z190, i.e., at a time when the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree?
How about, instead, you accept the fact that before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said she never even saw Oswald carrying or holding a rifle, and that in later years she insisted, in a recorded interview, that she did not take the backyard rifle photos? How about that?
How about if you accept the fact that the FBI could no evidence that Oswald ever picked up the rifle from the post office, and that no "Hidell" was authorized to pick up mail delivered to Oswald's post office box? How about that?
How about if you accept the fact that there is not one shred of credible evidence that Oswald fired at General Walker, that the only eyewitness said neither of the two men he saw looked like Oswald, and that Walker himself insisted that the bullet that was recovered from his house was not the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used?
Another one of your elaborate strawman scenarios that ignores the available evidence.
BTW, are you aware that in 1992 two manipulated backyard prints were released from Dallas police files, and that they show the white silhouette of a human figure where Oswald is supposed to be? Are you aware that Robert Hester, a Dallas photographer who helped process assassination-related film for the Dallas police and the FBI on 11/22/63, said he saw an FBI agent with a transparency of one of the backyard photos on 11/22, which was the day before the police said they "found" the photos? Also, Hester said that one of the backyard photos he processed showed no figure in the picture, just like the doctored print released by Dallas authorities in 1992. Gee, what a coincidence, hey?
I've already answered this argument. You repeat the same arguments over and over without dealing with counter arguments that have been made to you.
Wrong again. One, Thompson rejected the PEP's explanation for the differing chins and argued that a photocopied composite would probably pass the tests applied by the PEP. Two, Thompson was hardly a "wannabe photo expert." Thompson was the chief of the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an ex-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.
I must say, it says much about your credibility that you would call Malcolm Thompson a "wannabe photo expert." Given your record of egregious blunders on the backyard photos, you of all people are in no position to be casting doubt on Thompson's sterling credentials.
And, again, since you speak so glowingly of the HSCA PEP, do you therefore accept their conclusions about the rearranging of boxes in the sniper's nest within 2 minutes after the shooting, and about the timing of the first hit on JFK (i.e., at a time when Oswald would have been unable to see JFK due to the oak tree)?
Uh-huh. This is more of your pseudo-scholarship. Tell me, why do you suppose the PEP withheld the Penrose measurements for the chin? Huh? They knew the chin had long been identified as a suspicious area, yet they withheld the Penrose measurements for it. I discuss this glaring omission in my article, which you might want to break down and read sometime.
Also, can you find me a photography professional who will endorse the PEP's claim that the nearly straight line across the backyard figure's chin is merely the edge of a watermark? Not one of the photographic experts I interviewed bought this claim. Here's a challenge for you: Take an eye dropper, put water in it, and drop a drop of water on a photo one hundred times, and tell me if a single one of the water drops has an edge that forms a nearly straight line. Good luck.
Furthermore, why do you suppose the PEP did not touch the issue of diagonal movement of the camera? Huh? I suspect that they did look at it and found no diagonal movement, and that they decided it would be wise to remain silent on the issue, since they likely figured that at least a few people would realize it would be wildly unlikely that the camera's diagonal position would not change at least slightly after being handed back and forth twice.
I have a theory about the PEP, and I freely admit it is pure speculation, but I think it makes sense given their performance: I think the PEP was only willing to go so far in acknowledging evidence that they knew was problematic for the lone-gunman theory, because they knew that the Select Committee members were only willing to go so far in accepting evidence of conspiracy. I think the PEP guys knew the backyard photos were fake and that there were serious anomalies in the autopsy photos, but that they were unwilling to say so. I think one or two of them dropped hints that the backyard photos were fake. They were willing to admit that the first hit occurred at or before Z190 and that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting, but I think that was as far as they were willing to go.
And, needless to say, it never occurred to you to consider the possibility that the thoroughly corrupt Captain J.W. Fritz would misrepresent what Oswald said, right? Why do you suppose Fritz failed to record even one minute of Oswald's hours of interrogation, not even with a stenographer? Why do you suppose he refused Oswald the basic right of having a defense attorney present during his interrogations? Why do you suppose the DPD lied about the results of the paraffin test on Oswald's right cheek? Why do you suppose the DPD put Oswald in grossly unfair lineups?
(We now know that the FBI had the paraffin cast subjected to NAA testing and found no chemical traces that Oswald had a fired a rifle, and that the FBI even had a control test done to ensure the accuracy of the NAA results.)
Just bumping this reply to note that it has received nothing but silence in response.
John Mytton has said that when the measurements for parallax are adjusted for scale, they show there is "massive parallax" in the backyard photos. Somehow, he did not realize that the PEP factored in scaling distances to account for magnification differences when measuring for horizontal and vertical parallax, even though this is clearly stated in the PEP report and in my article.
John Mytton has also said that the differences in the distances between background objects in the photos are "very visible" to the naked eye. This is a preposterous claim that ignores the fact that the PEP only detected those differences via “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” (2 HSCA 398, 405).
It is worth pausing to note the revealing fact that the PEP did not publish any measurements to determine if the camera moved angularly in any direction between exposures, i.e., if there was any pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position between exposures. The PEP’s silence on this issue implies the wildly unlikely assumption that there was no pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position after being handed back and forth twice. This would have required the camera to be held perfectly horizontally and perfectly vertically for each picture, with no tilt whatsoever between exposures.
WC apologists can't tell us where the scaled measurements for vertical parallax are, yet they claim that the numbers after "Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance" and "The results are as follows" do not provide those measurements.
The 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are indisputably measurements, and the difference between them, before the scaling distances are factored, is only 1.7 mm, or only 0.06 inches, or 3/50ths of an inch.
The PEP said these numbers were the measurements of "the vertical distance from the center of the . . . gate bolt or latch to the bottom edge of the screen of the screen door in the background" of 133-A and 133-B (6 HSCA 178), and that the measurements were made to calculate "vertical parallax." So the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are indisputably the measurements of the vertical distances between the named background objects in 133-A and 133-B.
Then, the scaling distances were applied. The scaling distance for 133-A was found to be 15.5 mm. The scaling distance for 133-B was found to be 15.2 mm. 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 179)
Again, all these numbers were introduced as "the results" of the measurements of the vertical distances between the gate bolt and the screen in the backgrounds, and the PEP specified that to account for differences in magnification, they applied scaling distances to the measurements, which we see they did. They divided each measured distance by its scaling distance. They divided the 133-A vertical distance of 30.4 mm by 15.5 mm, and they divided the 133-B vertical distance of 32.1 mm by 15.2 mm.
Ok, so where are the measurements for the vertical parallax after the scaling distances were applied? Curiously, we are apparently asked to assume that the PEP did not provide them, that they provided the unscaled measurements, but not the scaled measurements, and based their camera-movement determinations on the ratios in the photos.
30.4 mm divided by 15.5 mm is 1.96 (133-A), and 32.1 mm divided by 15.2 mm is 2.11 (133-B). If these are the final b/a ratio for the two photos, then the difference is only 0.15. This would explain why the PEP said the numbers in question proved that the camera moved only "slightly" downward between exposures, that the change in the camera's vertical position was "very small."
In his testimony, McCamy told the HSCA that the measured distances between background objects in the photos were "ratioed against another dimension here" so that "mere scale wouldn't change these things" (2 HSCA 416). Based on this, said McCamy, "we find that there has been some vertical movement also, very small, but it is there" (2 HSCA 416).
If we read further in the PEP report, we learn that the PEP experts were not certain about the degree of vertical camera movement based only on the vertical measurements. They explained that only one determination was made for the vertical movement, whereas three determinations were made for the horizontal movement. They further explained that in the horizontal case, the determination was made more sensitive to parallax by the behavior of the objects that were measured to determine the scaling distance, i.e., two of the pickets on the fence. In the b/a ratio for the horizontal movement, there was the double effect of “b” getting smaller and “a” getting larger. This double effect was not seen in the determination of vertical parallax. Therefore, the PEP said their detection of vertical parallax was also based on their finding that the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of the upper horizontal part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B:
Since less background appeared above the gate bolt on 133-A than on 133-B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures. Less certainty can be attached to this determination than to the determination of horizontal parallax for two reasons. Only one rather than three determinations was made. Second, in the horizontal case, the determination was made more sensitive to parallax because as the camera moved, the picket to the right became narrower while at the same time the picket to the left became wider.
Thus, in the ratio b/a, the numerator [i.e., b] was diminishing as the denominator [i.e., a] grew. This double effect was not present in the determination of vertical parallax. Nevertheless, there is additional evidence of vertical parallax. Between the first and second pickets from the left in the gate just below the bottom edge of the upper horizontal member a small black rectangle appears. It appears more elongated in the vertical direction on CE 133-A, as one would expect if the camera were moved down between exposures, exposing more of the dark area in the background. (6 HSCA 179)
I need to make correction to an earlier argument of mine: I said that initially Marina said she had never seen Oswald with the rifle, never seen him carrying the rifle, etc. I based this on Sylvia Meagher's description of four interview summaries, but it turns out her description is invalid, and in fact misleading, except for her paraphrase that Marina said she never saw Oswald carrying the rifle into the house.
It is true, however, that in later years in a recorded interview, she said she did not take the extant backyard rifle photos.
-
It is true, however, that in later years in a recorded interview, she said she did not take the extant backyard rifle photos.
How do you know what photos Livingstone showed her? This is a man who published and profited from stolen JFK autopsy photos for years. Not surprising that he's the kind of person you have to rely on as part of your silly alteration theories.
-
How do you know what photos Livingstone showed her? This is a man who published and profited from stolen JFK autopsy photos for years. Not surprising that he's the kind of person you have to rely on as part of your silly alteration theories.
Harrison Livingstone was one of the most serious, thorough researchers in the research community.
Oh, he "profited" from "stolen" JFK autopsy photos for years?! Uh-huh, you mean he made available to the public photos that the government had intended to keep suppressing for decades.
We're not talking about "alteration theories." The fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is a scientific fact established through multiple, independent optical-density measurements of the x-rays. One scientist, Dr. Mantik (who is both a radiation oncologist and a physicist), has even duplicated the process that was used to alter the x-rays.
We also know for an absolute fact that the JFK autopsy brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain. They show a brain with only 1-2 ounces of missing tissue, yet the lateral skull x-rays alone show at least 2/3 of the right brain missing, and we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including two of the trailing patrolmen, the windshield of the follow-up car, and the clothing of one of the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car. Even Humes admitted to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away.
The last time we discussed Dr. Mantik's research, you resorted to quoting a chiropractor, "Dr." Chad Zimmerman, who has no qualifications in physics or radiology, whereas Dr. Mantik has worked in radiology as a radiation oncologist for decades (including taking hundreds of optical-density measurements), holds a doctorate in physics, and even taught physics at the University of Michigan.
-
You mean you can't. And you know it.
This is revealing: I have merely asked you to cite the paragraph and/or page number where the vertical parallax numbers are given. You deny they are the numbers that immediately follow the clearly introductory paragraph that explains how the vertical parallax was measured and calculated and then says "The results are as follows."
I'm saying, Okay, then if those numbers aren't the vertical parallax numbers, where are they? Did the panel just forget to provide them? Did they withhold them? And your answer is "I don't need to tell you. You're just moving the goal posts."
BTW, do you endorse John Mytton's argument that the differences in the background distances are "very visible" to the naked eye?
Well, I see at least you're using the word "parallax" correctly now. Anyway, one, the demonstration of parallax does not automatically prove the backgrounds are not the same. Two, having said this, my position does not require that the backgrounds are the same, since a tripod-mounted camera could have produced photos that would exhibit only slight camera movement. Three, the horizontal and vertical parallax would be much greater if the photos had been taken by a cheap handheld camera with a lever for a button with the camera being handed back and forth twice to forward the film.
And did you notice that the PEP did not even address the issue of diagonal camera movement? We are left to make the extremely unlikely assumption that the camera never moved even a few millimeters diagonally after being handed back and forth twice.
The core of my original argument is the same argument I've been making for years: that the PEP found extremely tiny differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos and acknowledged that these differences proved the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and downward between exposures, and that the differences in distances and camera movement would be far greater if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged by the official story.
MG: You mean you can't. And you know it. This is revealing: I have merely asked you to cite the paragraph and/or page number where the vertical parallax numbers are given. You deny they are the numbers that immediately follow the clearly introductory paragraph that explains how the vertical parallax was measured and calculated and then says "The results are as follows."
No. I mean we don't need to. Period. You've already done that for us. Your utter lack of even a very basic understanding of the subject under discussion prevents you from seeing this.
To clue you in, the parallax is calculated by subtracting the the bolt-to-screen measurement in one photo from the corresponding measurement in the other. In this case, the parallax measurement is 32.1mm - 30.4mm = 1.7mm. That is, the vertical position of the gate latch WRT the screen behind it in the background changes 1.7mm between the two photos. The calculations involving the 15.5mm and 15.2mm "scaling distances" are only there to show that the difference in the bolt-to-screen measurements is not due to simple enlargement of the background image.
You will, no doubt complain that 1.7mm is a small measurement. But this is on a photograph that is much smaller than the scene represented within it. If CE133A or B were enlarged to life size, the apparent delta distance along the film plane would be something like 10x what the PEP measured, ie 17mm or 2/3".
MG: Well, I see at least you're using the word "parallax" correctly now.
I haven't used the word incorrectly at all. You simply don't understand what it really is or how it works. Which doesn't stop you from talking loudly about it so that the rest of the world knows you don't understand what you're talking about. At least, it's fair warning for the rest of us.
MG: And did you notice that the PEP did not even address the issue of diagonal camera movement?
They generated measurements for both horizontal and vertical parallax. Having that data along both axes means that they also measured the diagonal parallax, since diagonal changes can be derived from the x and y measurements via judicious use of the Pythagorean Theorem.
MG: The core of my original argument is the same argument I've been making for years: that the PEP found extremely tiny differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos and acknowledged that these differences proved the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and downward between exposures, and that the differences in distances and camera movement would be far greater if these photos had been taken in the manner alleged by the official story.
Given the way the photos were supposed to have been taken, any changes in relative position would be expected to be quite small. The only people who have a problem with it are the zealously ignorant folks (a set you appear to be a member of) who neither see clearly, think carefully, nor know much about what they're talking about. In reality, the "core of your argument" is nothing more than an empty, assertion.
-
30.4 mm divided by 15.5 mm is 1.96 mm (133-A), and 32.1 mm divided by 15.2 mm is 2.11 mm (133-B). If these are the final b/a ratio for the two photos, or if 2.11 and 1.96 constitute the two numbers in the b/a ratio (2.11/1.96), then the difference is only 0.15. 0.15 mm is only 0.0059 inches, or 59/10000ths of an inch. This would explain why the PEP said the numbers in question proved that the camera moved only "slightly" downward between exposures, that the change in the camera's vertical position was "very small."
[...]
If we read further in the PEP report, we learn that the PEP experts were not certain about the degree of vertical camera movement based only on the vertical measurements.
[...]
Oh, here we go again.
MG: 30.4 mm divided by 15.5 mm is 1.96 mm (133-A), and 32.1 mm divided by 15.2 mm is 2.11 mm (133-B)
No! No! No! No!!! You don't even know Jr High arithmetic.
30.4mm divided by 15.5mm is 1.96, not 1.96mm. Likewise, 32.1mm divided by 15.2mm is 2.11, not 2.11mm.
MG: the PEP experts were not certain about the degree of vertical camera movement based only on the vertical measurement
To do so would require a very precise survey of the backyard. They didn't have that, and the HSCA probably wasn't going to pay for it. The PEP already showed what they needed to when they demonstrated the parallax in the background of CE133a compared to CE133b.
-
Oh, here we go again.
MG: 30.4 mm divided by 15.5 mm is 1.96 mm (133-A), and 32.1 mm divided by 15.2 mm is 2.11 mm (133-B)
No! No! No! No!!! You don't even know Jr High arithmetic.
30.4mm divided by 15.5mm is 1.96, not 1.96mm. Likewise, 32.1mm divided by 15.2mm is 2.11, not 2.11mm.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
I made a simple example;
5mm goes into 10mm twice.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLjr33tT/10mm-divided-by-5mm.jpg)
And 10mm divided into 5 parts means each part equals 2mm.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hjb5JJzG/10mm-divided-by-5.jpg)
Griffith applies this level of self-serving logic to every one of his conspiracy theories and, because he is so full of himself, he refuses to accept that his analysis is constantly deeply flawed.
JohnM
-
Oh, here we go again.
MG: 30.4 mm divided by 15.5 mm is 1.96 mm (133-A), and 32.1 mm divided by 15.2 mm is 2.11 mm (133-B)
No! No! No! No!!! You don't even know Jr High arithmetic. 30.4mm divided by 15.5mm is 1.96, not 1.96mm. 32.1mm divided by 15.2mm is 2.11, not 2.11mm.
Okay, but let's back up and reestablish some basic facts so we don't miss the forest for the trees: Surely you will agree that the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are indisputably measurements, and that the difference between them is only 1.7 mm, or only 0.06 inches, or 3/50ths of an inch, right?
The PEP said these numbers were the measurements of "the vertical distance from the center of the . . . gate bolt or latch to the bottom edge of the screen of the screen door in the background" of 133-A and 133-B (6 HSCA 178), and that the measurements were made to calculate "vertical parallax." So clearly the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are indisputably the measurements of the vertical distances between the named background objects in 133-A and 133-B, before the scaling distances were factored, right?
And there can be no doubt that the scaling distance for 133-A was found to be 15.5 mm, and that the scaling distance for 133-B was found to be 15.2 mm, right?
Alright, so we're back to the same question I've been trying to get you to answer for days now: Again, all these numbers were introduced as "the results" of the measurements of the vertical distances between the gate bolt and the screen in the backgrounds, and the PEP specified these measurements were done to calculate vertical parallax: "Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance" from the gate bolt to the bottom edge of the screen door "in the background" (6 HSCA 178).
Ok, so where are the measurements for the vertical parallax after the scaling distances were applied? If the answer is that the PEP simply failed to provide them, let's put that on the table.
If the answer is that the scaling distances were applied merely in order to ratio the measurements, that the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are the vertical parallax numbers, that 2.11 and 1.96 are ratios, then what does it say about the "very small" vertical camera movement if that movement was determined by these ratios?
This, then, would explain the PEP's conclusion that the camera moved only "slightly" downward between exposures, even though it was supposedly handed back and forth twice between exposures, and even though Oswald would have to put down the rifle and newspapers, take the camera, forward the film, hand the camera back to Marina, pick up the rifle and newspapers, and then resume posing. No one can really believe that photos taken in this manner would have only microscopic differences in the distances between background objects.
McCamy told the HSCA that the measured distances between background objects in the photos were "ratioed against another dimension here" so that "mere scale wouldn't change these things" (2 HSCA 416). Based on this, said McCamy, "we find that there has been some vertical movement also, very small, but it is there" (2 HSCA 416). They had to use computers and high magnification/microscopes to determine the distances between background objects and to determine the degree of camera movement.
MG: the PEP experts were not certain about the degree of vertical camera movement based only on the vertical measurements.
To do so would require a very precise survey of the backyard. They didn't have that, and the HSCA probably wasn't going to pay for it. The PEP already showed what they needed to when they demonstrated the parallax in the background of CE133a compared to CE133b.
What? This is an evasive circular argument. It also misses the main point. The PEP didn't need a survey of the backyard to determine the horizontal parallax. Why would they have needed a survey to determine the vertical parallax? Furthermore, as I noted in my reply, the PEP said they were able to establish the existence of vertical parallax based on their finding that the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of the upper horizontal part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B.
The main point is that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was handed back and forth twice between exposures would show far greater differences in the distances between background objects and would exhibit much more horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
Finally, I again note the damning fact that the PEP did not publish any measurements to determine 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 PEP’s silence on this issue implies the wildly unlikely assumption that there was no pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position after being handed back and forth twice. This would have required the camera to be held perfectly horizontally and perfectly vertically for each picture, with no tilt in any direction whatsoever between exposures.
Only photos taken by a professional photographer using a high-quality camera and a sturdy tripod will not contain indications of any angular camera movement between exposures, and only photos taken in this manner will contain only tiny differences in the distances between background objects.
-
Let's try again. Maybe Michael Griffith would care to explain why and how Lee Oswald gave George DeMohrenschildt a signed copy of one of the backyard photographs in 1963, if the photos themselves are the obvious forgeries Griffith insists.
-
Let's try again. Maybe Michael Griffith would care to explain why and how Lee Oswald gave George DeMohrenschildt a signed copy of one of the backyard photographs in 1963, if the photos themselves are the obvious forgeries Griffith insists.
I've answered the argument several times, and this argument has been addressed in numerous books going back to the 1980s. Yet, here you are repeating it as if it is some kind of credible argument. This is another perfect example of the merry-go-around that lone-gunman theorists operate here. You guys just keep repeating debunked arguments over and over and over again, and you either aren't aware of the answers to them or you choose to ignore them.
The picture suspiciously just turned up in the DeMohrenschildts' belongings. Some family members voiced the suspicion that the photo was planted among their belongings. No one ever claimed that Oswald handed the photo to George DeM or to anyone else in the family. The small amount of handwriting on the back of the photo could have been easily forged, and the date is written in a format that Oswald never, ever, ever used.
Now, let's try again: How about if you explain how a cheap, top-view, side-lever-activated handheld camera that was allegedly handed back and forth twice between exposures could have produced photos (1) that have such tiny differences in the distances between background objects that they could only be measured photogrammetrically with the aid of computers and microscopes, (2) that show the horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures was "slight" and "very small," and (3) that allegedly show there was not the slightest tilt/angular movement in the camera's position (i.e., no yaw, pitch, or roll whatsoever) between exposures?
And, how about you find me a single photo with a watermark whose edge forms a virtually straight line across the chin? I ask because the PEP claimed that the obvious retouching line across the backyard figure's chin is really just the edge of a watermark, a nonsensical proposition that was rejected by every photographic expert I interviewed. The experts I interviewed had over 100 years of combined experience in photography, and every one of them said they had never seen a watermark with an edge that formed a nearly straight line.
Speaking of the backyard figure's chin, how about you explain why the PEP omitted the Penrose measurements for the chin, even though the chin had long been identified as a key indicator of forgery?
And, of course, how about you explain why no one has yet been able to duplicate the impossible variant shadows seen in the backyard photos? Do you know what happened when the PEP tried to duplicate just the variant nose shadow with a plastic model of a head? They had to tilt and rotate the model's head so the face was no longer looking at the camera, and then they had to shift the camera's position just to reacquire a frontal view of the face. When Congressman Fithian called McCamy on this unrealistic manipulation, PEP member McCamy conceded that "a number of assumptions" would be necessary to "interpret the Oswald photograph" from the reenactment. Uh, yeah, that's putting it mildly.
Have you even read my article yet?
The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view
-
"Harrison Livingstone was one of the most serious, thorough researchers in the research community."
This quote from Michael Griffith should tell you everything you need to know. In actual fact, Livingstone was complicit in selling stolen JFK autopsy photos to tabloids and in his books, printing the most outlandish and unsupported conspiracy theories in said books and at one point even resorted to quoting members of a pre-Internet JFK assassination forum on the network Prodigy as if they somehow lent credence to his lunatic ramblings.
-
We continue to see lone-gunman theorists cite the writing on the back of the DeMohrenschildt copy of the backyard rifle photos as evidence against Oswald, while saying nothing about the problematic and suspicious nature of this photo and its backside writing, even though these issues have been raised by skeptics for decades. Here is some of what investigative journalist Anthony Summers wrote about the DeM photo over two decades ago in his best-selling book Not in Your Lifetime:
In 1967, more than three years after the Kennedy assassination, George de Mohrenschildt would say he had come upon fresh and “very interesting information.” While sorting luggage retrieved from storage, he said, he had come across another copy of the by then famous photograph of Oswald holding his guns and leftist magazines. On the back of this copy of the photograph there were two inscriptions.
One, which Assassinations Committee examiners found to be in Oswald’s handwriting, read, “To my friend George from Lee Oswald,” along with a date—“5/IV/63.” Given the time frame involved, this must refer to 5 April 1963, though it is written not in the order Americans write the date—month/day/year—but day first, European-style. Nor would Americans use the Roman numeral IV for the numeral 4. A check of the dozens of letters and documents written by Oswald produces not one example of a date written like the one on the back of the photograph.
The second inscription, which is written in Russian Cyrillic script, translates as “Hunter of fascists ha-ha-ha!!!” (see Photo 17). Expert testimony to the Assassinations Committee was that the ironic slogan—clearly directed at Oswald—had been written and then rewritten in pencil—but not, document examiners said, by either Oswald, Marina, or George de Mohrenschildt. Nor, by implication, by Jeanne—whose parents had been Russian—since the experts said it was written by someone unfamiliar with Cyrillic script. (pp. 192-193)
So the damning statement "Hunter of fascists ha-ha-ha!" was not written by George or Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, nor by Marina, nor by Oswald himself, and was written by someone who was unfamiliar with Russian Cyrillic script! Well, now, how about that?! Who, then, could have written that statement, which has been endlessly cited by WC apologists as evidence against Oswald in the Walker shooting?
When the HSCA asked Marina if she recognized the handwriting of the statement, she said it looked like it was written by a foreigner who was trying to copy Russian:
No, I don't. That is what I was discussing with my lawyer. We tried to find out if that was written by me. I mean as I told him, that my handwriting does change a few times a day. I do not write same way, you know, in the morning and maybe at night, so it is hard for me to claim even my own handwriting, but you have certain way of writing, habit of writing certain letters, so I know for sure that I could not, I do not write certain letter that way. So at first I thought it was maybe my handwriting, but after I examine it, I know it is not. . . .
This letter "ha," in the first word after "o," this is something like maybe foreigner would try to write it, you know, to copy Russian language.(2 HSCA 242-243)
Here's a real kicker: Marina said the inscription sounded like something she would write. In fact, she used the phrase "ha-ha" in the Russian handwritten narrative of her life story. But, even a layman looking at the handwriting of the two uses of the phrase can see that the handwriting of the "ha-ha-ha!" on the DeM photo is different from Marina's handwriting.
Now, gee, who would have known that Marina used that phrase, and who would have written that phrase on the back of a strangely high-quality copy of 133-A and then put it in the DeMohrenschildts' belongings?
Obviously, the small amount of handwriting identified as Oswald's on the back of the photo could have been easily forged, which would, among other things, explain (1) the use of a date format that Oswald never used, and (2) the fact that the damning "hunter of fascists" statement was not written by Oswald or Marina, nor by either of the DeMohrenschildts.
This is a good example of the fact that when you look below the surface of the case against Oswald, time and time again you find that the "evidence" is riddled with problems and inconsistencies.
Finally, at the risk of seeming to kick an already deceased horse, in this case the absurd claim that the backyard photos contain "massive parallax," allow me to briefly note some of the microscopic differences in the distances between background objects as determined by the PEP's measurements to determine horizontal parallax.
The “a” distance was the distance from the left edge of the foreground post to the left edge of the picket to the left of it in 133-A and 133-B, and it was measured at three levels.
LOWER LEVEL
133-A: 6.8 mm
133-B: 6.0 mm (6 HSCA 178)
That's a difference of just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch.
MIDDLE LEVEL
133-A: 6.5 mm
133-B: 6.4 mm (6 HSCA 178)
That's a difference of just 0.1 mm, 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch.
UPPER LEVEL
133-A: 7.0 mm
133-B: 5.9 mm (6 HSCA 178)
That's a difference of just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch. This was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of high magnification or a microscope.
Let's continue by looking at the measurements of the "b" distance in 133-A and 133-B, and this distance, too, was measured at three levels. The "b" distance was the distance from the right edge of the foreground post to the right edge of the picket to the right of it.
LOWER LEVEL
133-A: 9.0 mm
133-B: 9.5 mm (6 HSCA 178)
That's a difference of just 0.5 mm, 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch.
MIDDLE LEVEL
133-A: 9.3 mm
133-B: 10.0 mm (6 HSCA 178)
That's a difference of just 0.7 mm, 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.
It is no wonder that the PEP said they found that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left between exposures. And, mind you, we're talking about photos that were supposedly taken with a cheap top-view, side-lever-activated camera that was allegedly handed back and forth twice between exposures.
The odds are astronomically remote, in reality zero, that the camera's horizontal position would have changed only slightly after being handed back and forth twice, especially since Oswald would have had to put down the rifle, put down the newspapers, take the camera, forward the film, hand the camera back to Marina, pick up the rifle and the newspapers, and then resume posing--again, twice.
And this is not to mention that the PEP remained revealingly silent about the camera's angular movement between exposures, i.e., pitch, yaw, and roll. We are left to infer the wildly implausible proposition that the camera did not tilt in the slightest degree between exposures.
-
Okay, but let's back up and reestablish some basic facts so we don't miss the forest for the trees: Surely you will agree that the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are indisputably measurements, and that the difference between them is only 1.7 mm, or only 0.06 inches, or 3/50ths of an inch, right?
The PEP said these numbers were the measurements of "the vertical distance from the center of the . . . gate bolt or latch to the bottom edge of the screen of the screen door in the background" of 133-A and 133-B (6 HSCA 178), and that the measurements were made to calculate "vertical parallax." So clearly the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are indisputably the measurements of the vertical distances between the named background objects in 133-A and 133-B, before the scaling distances were factored, right?
And there can be no doubt that the scaling distance for 133-A was found to be 15.5 mm, and that the scaling distance for 133-B was found to be 15.2 mm, right?
Alright, so we're back to the same question I've been trying to get you to answer for days now: Again, all these numbers were introduced as "the results" of the measurements of the vertical distances between the gate bolt and the screen in the backgrounds, and the PEP specified these measurements were done to calculate vertical parallax: "Vertical parallax was calculated by measuring the vertical distance" from the gate bolt to the bottom edge of the screen door "in the background" (6 HSCA 178).
Ok, so where are the measurements for the vertical parallax after the scaling distances were applied? If the answer is that the PEP simply failed to provide them, let's put that on the table.
If the answer is that the scaling distances were applied merely in order to ratio the measurements, that the 30.4 mm and 32.1 mm numbers are the vertical parallax numbers, that 2.11 and 1.96 are ratios, then what does it say about the "very small" vertical camera movement if that movement was determined by these ratios?
This, then, would explain the PEP's conclusion that the camera moved only "slightly" downward between exposures, even though it was supposedly handed back and forth twice between exposures, and even though Oswald would have to put down the rifle and newspapers, take the camera, forward the film, hand the camera back to Marina, pick up the rifle and newspapers, and then resume posing. No one can really believe that photos taken in this manner would have only microscopic differences in the distances between background objects.
McCamy told the HSCA that the measured distances between background objects in the photos were "ratioed against another dimension here" so that "mere scale wouldn't change these things" (2 HSCA 416). Based on this, said McCamy, "we find that there has been some vertical movement also, very small, but it is there" (2 HSCA 416). They had to use computers and high magnification/microscopes to determine the distances between background objects and to determine the degree of camera movement.
What? This is an evasive circular argument. It also misses the main point. The PEP didn't need a survey of the backyard to determine the horizontal parallax. Why would they have needed a survey to determine the vertical parallax? Furthermore, as I noted in my reply, the PEP said they were able to establish the existence of vertical parallax based on their finding that the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of the upper horizontal part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B.
The main point is that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was handed back and forth twice between exposures would show far greater differences in the distances between background objects and would exhibit much more horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
Finally, I again note the damning fact that the PEP did not publish any measurements to determine 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 PEP’s silence on this issue implies the wildly unlikely assumption that there was no pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position after being handed back and forth twice. This would have required the camera to be held perfectly horizontally and perfectly vertically for each picture, with no tilt in any direction whatsoever between exposures.
Only photos taken by a professional photographer using a high-quality camera and a sturdy tripod will not contain indications of any angular camera movement between exposures, and only photos taken in this manner will contain only tiny differences in the distances between background objects.
Let's get back to brass tacks here, back to what the issue was, what the PEP was trying to do, and what the PEP was not trying to do. A number of CTs, most prominently Jack White, were claiming that the backgrounds in the backyard photos were identical. Their implication was clear: the photos were composites made by someone inserting three images of Oswald over the same original background photo. The parallax test was performed to determine whether White's assertion was true or not. Since parallax was found, White's assertion was shown to be wrong, and the PEP needed to perform no other tests to determine pitch, roll, or yaw. Your implied demand that they do so is simply your attempt to move the goal posts.
MG: Ok, so where are the measurements for the vertical parallax after the scaling distances were applied?
You can't figure that out yourself?
The reference distance ("scaling distance") in measured on CE133A was given as 15.5mm. The corresponding measurement on CD133B is 15.2mm. Which means that a distance on CE133A has been magnified factor of 15.5mm/15.2mm = 1.02X over it's counterpart on CE133B. That is, something in the photo that measures 1.02mm on CE133A will measure 1.00mm on CE133B. If we correct for the magnification factor, the 30.4mm bolt-to-screen distance in CE133A would be 30.4mm/1.02 = 29.8mm. The magnification-corrected calculation for parallax between bolt-to-screem measurements in the two photos would then be 32.1mm - 29.8mm = 2.3mm. Since this is a mesurement made from photographic enlargments that are roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the actual scene, the real-world parallax would have been something more on the order of 23mm or about 7/8". Note that this is the amount of parallax, but not the distance the camera actually moved. Since both the gate and the screen door are well in the background, the distance the camera actually moved between the two exposures would have been greater than the bolt-screen parallax. Determining how much greater is what would have required the detailed 3D survey of the yard at Neely St.
MG: even though {the camera} was supposedly handed back and forth twice between exposures, and even though Oswald would have to put down the rifle and newspapers, take the camera, forward the film, hand the camera back to Marina, pick up the rifle and newspapers, and then resume posing. No one can really believe that photos taken in this manner would have only microscopic differences in the distances between background objects.
Again, there are no "microscopic" distances. The parallax as determined from measuring the enlargements of CE133A/B corresponds to a significantly larger distance in the real world. Further, this larger distance is not the actual distance the camera would have moved. This distance would be expected to be somewhat larger than the parallax. Also, since Marina would have held the camera at about the same height for each exposure, we wouldn't expect to see a lot of vertical parallax anyway.
-
Let's get back to brass tacks here, back to what the issue was, what the PEP was trying to do, and what the PEP was not trying to do. A number of CTs, most prominently Jack White, were claiming that the backgrounds in the backyard photos were identical. Their implication was clear: the photos were composites made by someone inserting three images of Oswald over the same original background photo. The parallax test was performed to determine whether White's assertion was true or not. Since parallax was found, White's assertion was shown to be wrong, and the PEP needed to perform no other tests to determine pitch, roll, or yaw. Your implied demand that they do so is simply your attempt to move the goal posts.
MG: Ok, so where are the measurements for the vertical parallax after the scaling distances were applied?
You can't figure that out yourself?
The reference distance ("scaling distance") in measured on CE133A was given as 15.5mm. The corresponding measurement on CD133B is 15.2mm. Which means that a distance on CE133A has been magnified factor of 15.5mm/15.2mm = 1.02X over it's counterpart on CE133B. That is, something in the photo that measures 1.02mm on CE133A will measure 1.00mm on CE133B. If we correct for the magnification factor, the 30.4mm bolt-to-screen distance in CE133A would be 30.4mm/1.02 = 29.8mm. The magnification-corrected calculation for parallax between bolt-to-screem measurements in the two photos would then be 32.1mm - 29.8mm = 2.3mm. Since this is a mesurement made from photographic enlargments that are roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the actual scene, the real-world parallax would have been something more on the order of 23mm or about 7/8". Note that this is the amount of parallax, but not the distance the camera actually moved. Since both the gate and the screen door are well in the background, the distance the camera actually moved between the two exposures would have been greater than the bolt-screen parallax. Determining how much greater is what would have required the detailed 3D survey of the yard at Neely St.
MG: even though {the camera} was supposedly handed back and forth twice between exposures, and even though Oswald would have to put down the rifle and newspapers, take the camera, forward the film, hand the camera back to Marina, pick up the rifle and newspapers, and then resume posing. No one can really believe that photos taken in this manner would have only microscopic differences in the distances between background objects.
Again, there are no "microscopic" distances. The parallax as determined from measuring the enlargements of CE133A/B corresponds to a significantly larger distance in the real world. Further, this larger distance is not the actual distance the camera would have moved. This distance would be expected to be somewhat larger than the parallax. Also, since Marina would have held the camera at about the same height for each exposure, we wouldn't expect to see a lot of vertical parallax anyway.
Let's get back to brass tacks here, back to what the issue was, what the PEP was trying to do, and what the PEP was not trying to do. A number of CTs, most prominently Jack White, were claiming that the backgrounds in the backyard photos were identical.
Exactly, here is their overall goal spelled out in black and white.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jSghzn9J/HSCA-identical-backgrounds.jpg)
Since this is a mesurement made from photographic enlargments that are roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the actual scene...
Again, there are no "microscopic" distances.
This isn't a difficult concept and even though multiple people have dumbed it down for Griffith, he still insists on repeating his stupid assertion.
In the following comparison shot, every object in the B&W photo is a scaled down version of it's real world counterpart and any "microscopic" differences in the B&W photo is simply a tiny fraction of what's seen in the actual objects.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnYCxPyC/Dealey-Plaza-1963-vs-2013.jpg)
And this is not to mention that the PEP remained revealingly silent about the camera's angular movement between exposures, i.e., pitch, yaw, and roll. We are left to infer the wildly implausible proposition that the camera did not tilt in the slightest degree between exposures.
Huh??
The camera definitely tilted between CE133A and CE133B, in these full frame slightly cropped photos the perspective change in the background between the post and the panel to Oswald's left is clear. In CE133A the camera is tilted more towards the sky which increased the splayed angle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jqG7zQZN/ce133a-ce133b-perspective.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qM4jsTmb/griffithsnightmare-smaller.gif)
Here is a direct comparison between the full frame uncropped ce133a and the similarly slightly cropped ce133b and as is obvious, they were not produced from a stationary fixed perspective.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zn2X591/ce133a-ce133b-comparison.gif)
EDIT: I have edited this post and corrected my usage of uncropped to slightly cropped since the backyard photos I used had a tiny white border which originated when they were initially processed because the aesthetically pleasing white border was a standard procedure. But nevertheless, the HSCA did have full frame uncropped versions of 133a and 133b. 133b came from the original negative and 133a was from the de Mohrenschildt print.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3DypCGg/HSCA-Backyard-first-generation-and-negative.jpg)
de-Mohrenschildt-133a
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXYQSJk7/de-Mohrenschildt-133a.jpg)
JohnM
-
It is also revealing that the PEP did not do any measurements on 133-C to determine if there were any differences in the distances between the background objects in 133-C and those in 133-A and 133-B. They only provided measurements for 133-A and 133-B.
If the PEP did do parallax measurements on 133-C, they did not mention doing them and did not publish them. The odds that the camera would have returned to virtually the same horizontal, vertical, and angular position twice are so fantastically remote as to be effectively zero.
How could the PEP pretend to be proving that the backgrounds in the photos were not the same when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos?
133-C shows the backyard figure in a different pose than his pose in 133-A and 133-B. In 133-C, he is holding the rifle at a different angle and is holding the newspapers in a different position than in the two other photos. 133-C also shows him in a different position in relation to the bush on his left than his position in 133-A and 133-B. All of these changes would surely suggest a change in the camera's angular, horizontal, and vertical position. One would therefore think the PEP would have been anxious to do parallax measurements on 133-C and contrast them with the measurements for 133-A and 133-B--unless, of course, the measurements proved to be problematic and either indicated even smaller camera movement or no camera movement.
-
Boy, Michael Griffith never gives up, even when having his proverbial hat handed to him by Mitch Todd and John Mytton. Guess he beat everybody else to the sign-up sheet at the JFK Assassination Career Day to continue the laughable photo analysis legacy of Jack White and Ralph Cinque...
-
Boy, Michael Griffith never gives up, even when having his proverbial hat handed to him by Mitch Todd and John Milton. Guess he beat everybody else to the sign-up sheet at the JFK Assassination Career Day to continue the laughable photo analysis legacy of Jack White and Ralph Cinque...
Boy, Michael Griffith never gives up...
You're right, in Griffith's feeble attempts in his OP to humiliate me, all he has done is expose his inability to understand even the basics, from his lame brained "microscopic differences" through to his preschool understanding of mathematics.
Now in his most recent post, yet again, he's shifting the goal posts and is already making erroneous assertions based on his self-serving guesses. What a clown!
BTW, what's even funnier is who was behind Griffith's MASSIVE conspiracy? In a recent Ed forum post, he seriously believes that the Mafia and the CIA and the Military and the Secret Service and the FBI and LBJ and Hoover and an army of film/photo/document forgers all got together, presumably at some HUGE football stadium, and planned the assassination. Wow!
Posted @ Ed Forum by Michael Griffith, September 16
I believe that elements of a number of groups came together to assassinate JFK. I believe that some right-wing circles were aware that a plot to kill JFK was in the works—they did not know many details but knew that a plot was occurring, and that JFK would soon be killed (e.g., Joseph Milteer, the KKK informant discussed in CE 762, and possibly Homer Echevarria).
I believe the most logical and likely suspects are the following:
-- Rogue elements of the CIA (including anti-Castro Cubans funded by the CIA) who were viscerally bitter over the Bay of Pigs, over JFK's Cuba policy in general, and over other aspects of his foreign policy and defense policy.
-- Elements of the Mafia, since JFK posed a serious threat to the Mafia's very existence and since JFK and RFK had hounded and enraged Carlos Marcello, Jimmy Hoffa, Mickey Cohen, and Sam Giancana, especially Marcello.
-- Rogue elements of the military who believed that JFK was a threat to national security, that he did not have the grit to stand up to the Soviets, that he passed up a golden opportunity to nuke the Soviet Union, and that he was determined to eventually put the U.S. military under UN control.
-- LBJ, given that JFK and RFK were (1) actively trying to ruin him by leaking his wrongdoing to the press, (2) supporting the DOJ investigation into corruption among his staff, and (3) planning on dropping him from the ticket in '64.
-- High-ranking elements of the Secret Service who were outraged by JFK's personal conduct, who despised his policies on civil rights, and who shared many of the views of the CIA and the military hardliners regarding JFK's foreign and defense policies.
Everywhere we turn in the JFK case, we see the Secret Service playing a major role in wrongdoing, from stripping JFK of security in Dallas, to stealing his body to prevent a valid autopsy, to taking the Zapruder film to NPIC and Hawkeyeworks, to confiscating the film of the Parkland doctors' press conference, to pressuring witnesses to change their stories, to destroying key evidence, etc., etc.
-- High-ranking elements of the FBI, including J. Edgar Hoover, for largely the same reasons given for the Secret Service's involvement. Hoover and many FBI agents played a major role in the cover-up.
JohnM
-
But wait! He forgot about Chauncey Holt! And Jean Pierre LaFitte! And Larry Crafard! And Roscoe White! And James Files! C'mon, Michael - don't short change all the plotters and their decades' worth of conspiratorial heavy lifting !
-
Boy, Michael Griffith never gives up, even when having his proverbial hat handed to him by Mitch Todd and John Mytton. Guess he beat everybody else to the sign-up sheet at the JFK Assassination Career Day to continue the laughable photo analysis legacy of Jack White and Ralph Cinque...
The funny thing about your reply is that you actually seem to believe it.
Mitch Todd didn't even know what "parallax" meant and kept misusing the term until I quoted the definition of the term from academic websites.
Mytton made the blundering claims that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos and that the differences in the distances between background objects are "very visible" to the naked eye, and he still has not retracted these howlers. In fact, he doubled down on them in his reply to Mitch Todd.
Oh, yes, they took pounced on my mistake of taking the PEP literally about the "results" of the vertical parallax measurements and mistakenly assuming that the two sets of numbers after "The results are as follows" were measurements. But, notice that they danced all around my main point about the parallax measurements, i.e., that the differences in the measured distances between background objects should be far, far greater if the photos were made in the manner in which they were allegedly made.
Let's look at this jaw-dropper from Mytton's reply to Mitch Todd:
Again, there are no "microscopic" distances. The parallax as determined from measuring the enlargements of CE133A/B corresponds to a significantly larger distance in the real world. Further, this larger distance is not the actual distance the camera would have moved. This distance would be expected to be somewhat larger than the parallax. Also, since Marina would have held the camera at about the same height for each exposure, we wouldn't expect to see a lot of vertical parallax anyway.
I'll say again: I don't know how anyone takes this guy seriously after making such demonstrably erroneous claims.
The argument that the distances between background objects "correspond to a significantly larger distance in the real world" ignores the fact that the PEP adjusted for scale to account for differences in magnification. Even without the scaling distances applied by the PEP, the "real world" distances would not change the fact that the photos contain microscopic differences in the distances between background objects, distances that were so small they could only be detected with the aid of computers and microscopes.
I repeat my challenge to WC apologists to conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same microscopic differences in the distances between background objects and that exhibit "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
The parallax measurements were done to try to prove that the camera's position changed between exposures in order disprove the theory that the same background was used for all three photos. The PEP admitted that their parallax measurements showed that the camera's horizontal and vertical position changed only "slightly" between exposures, and they described the change in vertical position as "very small."
This is not a bit surprising because the differences in the distances between background objects were so tiny that they could only be detected with the aid of computer analysis and microscopes. You don't have to be a math whiz to grasp the obvious fact that the camera's movement would have had to be incredibly slight to produce such tiny differences in the distances between background objects.
And the PEP did not even include 133-C in their parallax analysis, a very odd omission given that they were supposed to be trying to prove that the same background was not used for all three photos.
Furthermore, the PEP fell strangely and revealingly silent about the camera's angular movement between exposures. When a person holds a cheap camera, hands the camera to someone else to forward the film, takes the camera back, snaps a picture, and then repeats this process, the odds are a zillion to one, effectively zero, that there will be no change in the camera's yaw, pitch, or roll between exposures, not to mention that the change in the camera's horizontal and vertical position will be so slight, so tiny, that it can only be determined by ratioing parallax measurements that are expressed in millimeters.
Allow me to once again note some of the microscopic differences in the distances between background objects as determined by the PEP's measurements to determine horizontal parallax.
The “a” distance was the distance from the left edge of the foreground post to the left edge of the picket to the left of it in 133-A and 133-B, and it was measured at three levels.
LOWER LEVEL
133-A: 6.8 mm
133-B: 6.0 mm
That's a difference of just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch.
MIDDLE LEVEL
133-A: 6.5 mm
133-B: 6.4 mm
That's a difference of just 0.1 mm, 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch.
UPPER LEVEL
133-A: 7.0 mm
133-B: 5.9 mm
That's a difference of just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch. This was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of high magnification or a microscope.
Let's continue by looking at the measurements of the "b" distance in 133-A and 133-B, and this distance, too, was measured at three levels. The "b" distance was the distance from the right edge of the foreground post to the right edge of the picket to the right of it.
LOWER LEVEL
133-A: 9.0 mm
133-B: 9.5 mm
That's a difference of just 0.5 mm, 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch.
MIDDLE LEVEL
133-A: 9.3 mm
133-B: 10.0 mm
That's a difference of just 0.7 mm, 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.
-
It is also revealing that the PEP did not do any measurements on 133-C to determine if there were any differences in the distances between the background objects in 133-C and those in 133-A and 133-B. They only provided measurements for 133-A and 133-B.
If the PEP did do parallax measurements on 133-C, they did not mention doing them and did not publish them. The odds that the camera would have returned to virtually the same horizontal, vertical, and angular position twice are so fantastically remote as to be effectively zero.
How could the PEP pretend to be proving that the backgrounds in the photos were not the same when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos?
133-C shows the backyard figure in a different pose than his pose in 133-A and 133-B. In 133-C, he is holding the rifle at a different angle and is holding the newspapers in a different position than in the two other photos. 133-C also shows him in a different position in relation to the bush on his left than his position in 133-A and 133-B. All of these changes would surely suggest a change in the camera's angular, horizontal, and vertical position. One would therefore think the PEP would have been anxious to do parallax measurements on 133-C and contrast them with the measurements for 133-A and 133-B--unless, of course, the measurements proved to be problematic and either indicated even smaller camera movement or no camera movement.
The proposition, "A, B, and C are identical" can be disproved by demonstrating that any two items are not identical. That's all they needed to do.
-
Below are some of the problems with the backyard rifle photos noted by Hershal Womack, a professor of photography at Texas Tech University:
If Lee Harvey Oswald cocked the shutter each time for Marina as she supposedly stated, then how did Oswald's leg stay in the same place relative to the dark area next to his left, photo right knee? Compare in two of the three photos. Measure from the line on the building on the right and measure to different parts of his body and I think you will reach the same conclusion. Note the Roscoe White backyard photo.
Other measurements from a fixed object like the stair post to portions of his body or even the pistol appear to be the same or near so. There's no way you could move and go back to the identical spot and take the same position without drawing the image on the back of the camera.
With this in mind then how did he get taller if neither he nor the camera moved. Maybe the camera was on a tripod and lowered which would make him taller but it would do the same to the post which may be a little taller but the height of Oswald seems out of proportion to that of the post or vice-versa. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view, pp. 13-14)
Mytton's discrediting doubling down on his claims about the differences in the distances between background objects and their implications deserves further comment:
Again, there are no "microscopic" distances.
Yes, there most certainly are. Let us once again look at the table for paragraph 441 regarding the horizontal parallax measurements in the PEP's report (6 HSCA 178). The difference in the lower-level "a" distance between 133-A and 133-B was measured to be just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "a" distance was found to be just 0.1 mm, or 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was found to be just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch.
The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects in the photos, unless they have super-human vision. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of a high-powered magnifying glass or a microscope, just as the PEP did.
Let's continue: The difference in the lower-level "b" distance between 133-A and 133-B was found to be just 0.5 mm, or 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "b" distance was found to be 0.7 mm, or 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.
The parallax as determined from measuring the enlargements of CE133A/B corresponds to a significantly larger distance in the real world.
If this were true, the horizontal and vertical changes in the camera's position would not have been "slight" and "very small." You seem to keep forgetting that the PEP could only determine camera movement by ratioing the parallax measurements, and that those incidents of parallax were so tiny that they were expressed in millimeters and were only detected with the aid of computer analysis and microscopes.
Further, this larger distance is not the actual distance the camera would have moved.
But if the differences in the background-object distances had actually been larger "in the real world," this would have proved the camera's movement was larger "in the real world," a point that the PEP would have loudly trumpeted.
The PEP produced screen-size enlargements of the photos as visual aids for their testimony to the Select Committee. Not once did Kirk and McCamy refer to a difference in background-object distances that could be seen with the naked by the committee members.
This distance [of camera movement] would be expected to be somewhat larger than the parallax.
Huh? Again, the PEP admitted that the changes in the camera's horizontal and vertical position between exposures were "slight" and "very small." Furthermore, the PEP did not even measure for changes in the camera's angular position, implying the impossible scenario that the camera did not tilt in the slightest degree at any angle between exposures.
And please tell me how the PEP could prove that the same background was not used in the backyard photos when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos, especially given the fact that the backyard figure's pose in 133-C is different than his poses in the two other photos. I can't help but suspect that the PEP did measure for parallax in 133-C, realized the measurements and resulting camera movement were problematic, and decided to simply ignore 133-C when it came to parallax and camera movement.
Also, since Marina would have held the camera at about the same height for each exposure, we wouldn't expect to see a lot of vertical parallax anyway.
This is just silly, given the difficulty that the PEP had in detecting any change in the camera's vertical position. They could only find one determination for vertical parallax and had to resort to claiming that vertical parallax was established because the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of a part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B (6 HSCA 179).
Moreover, in her later years, no longer under threat of deportation, Marina stated in a taped interview that she did not take the backyard rifle photos in evidence.
Years earlier, when she was still claiming she'd taken the pictures, she said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos. Humm, no way. The Imperial Reflex 620 had no viewfinder that you could hold up to your eye--it only had a waist-level viewfinder on its top, which required you to hold the camera below the level of your head and to look down into the viewfinder.
As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.
-
As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.
Uhh, no... YOU conduct the reenactment. YOU do the measurements. It's not the responsibility of other people to validate your long-debunked blathering about these photos, which have been proven authentic time and time again.
-
To wrap up my input in this thread, I’ll mention some of the glaring problems with the “discovery” and origin of the backyard rifle photos and of the Imperial Reflex camera that was supposedly used to take the photos. The alleged discovery and origin of these items smell to high heaven of fraud. Consider these facts:
-- The Dallas Police Department (DPD) claimed they found two negatives of the backyard photos in Ruth Paine’s garage, but the DPD only entered one negative into evidence, and the other negative disappeared without explanation. Can you imagine how a police department could “misplace” one of the two most important negatives in the history of crime?
* The backyard photos were not “found” until the day after the assassination. Somehow the multiple waves of DPD officers and FBI agents who searched Ruth Paine’s home hours after the assassination “missed” them.
-- In 1992, Dallas authorities released previously suppressed files on the JFK assassination. Among these files were backyard rifle photos taken in Oswald’s Neely Street backyard. One of the photos shows a DPD detective holding a rifle and newspapers in the same pose seen in 133-C Dees and 133-C Stovall, but those photos were not until 1977. One of the photos shows a white silhouette where the backyard figure is supposed to be and contains signs of manipulation.
On February 9, 1992, the Houston Post reported, "One photo of Oswald's backyard in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation." The Post further stated that the manipulation involved "attempts to frame Oswald by 'inserting' him into the background" of the picture. The Post provided a description of the print:
In the manipulated print in police files Oswald does not appear. Instead, there is a white silhouette of a human figure holding an apparent rifle and newspapers. The silhouette appears to be an example of matting, a darkroom technique that can serve as an intermediate step in the combining of photographic images. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, Thunder's Mouth Press Edition, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1992, p. xxii)
-- When the DPD backyard rifle photos were released in 1992, the DPD’s explanation was that they were merely the products of an innocent camera test done on 11/29/1963 to help authorities better understand the “Oswald” backyard rifle photos. However, the DPD did not explain how the detective knew to assume the same pose that the backyard figure assumes in 133-C Dees and 133-C Stovall when those photos were not discovered until 1977.
According to the official record, no one knew that the backyard figure had assumed a third pose, a pose different than the ones in 133-A and 133-B, until 1977. So how did the detective know to assume a third pose that was officially unknown until 1977?
-- Robert Hester, a photographer who worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas and who helped process assassination-related film for the Dallas police and the FBI on 11/22, reported in a 1970 interview that he saw an FBI agent with a transparency of one of the backyard pictures on 11/22, which was the day before the police said they "found" the photos. Moreover, one of the backyard photos Hester processed showed no figure in the picture, just like one of the DPD prints that were discovered in 1992. Obviously, Hester could not have known about the DPD print that shows a silhouette instead of the Oswald figure because it was not released until 1992. Thus, his account of a silhouette photo is credible.
-- The Imperial Reflex camera was not “found” until nearly three months after the assassination. The camera was not included in the inventories of Oswald’s possessions seized by the DPD.
-- On February 24, 1964, Oswald’s brother Robert gave the IR camera to law enforcement authorities. Robert claimed that he did not hand over “this cheap camera” sooner “because he had never been asked for it previously” and because “it had never occurred to him that anyone would be interested in the camera.” But federal agents had asked Robert about his brother Lee’s cameras and showed him pictures of cameras on February 16.
Perhaps realizing that Robert Oswald’s story sounded suspicious (assuming it even was his story and not a story that he was coerced into telling), many months after the assassination, the FBI produced a report that claimed that Detective John McCabe of the Irving Police Department saw the IR camera in a gray metal box in Ruth Paine’s garage on 11/23, but that McCabe did not take the camera because he did not think it was important!
Right, so none of the waves of police and federal agents who searched that garage on 11/22 and 11/23 saw the camera, but McCabe saw it, and then ignored it because he did not think it was important.
The gray box in which McCabe belatedly claimed he saw the IR camera on 11/23 had already been itemized by the FBI. The FBI itemization said the box contained 13 books and some random items—no camera was listed. The 11/23 DPD inventory of the gray box likewise did not mention a camera.
Police officers and detectives gave conflicting stories about who found the backyard rifle photos (see Sylvia Meagher’s detailed discussion on this in her famous book Accessories After the Fact, pp. 200-209).
-
Below are some of the problems with the backyard rifle photos noted by Hershal Womack, a professor of photography at Texas Tech University:
If Lee Harvey Oswald cocked the shutter each time for Marina as she supposedly stated, then how did Oswald's leg stay in the same place relative to the dark area next to his left, photo right knee? Compare in two of the three photos. Measure from the line on the building on the right and measure to different parts of his body and I think you will reach the same conclusion. Note the Roscoe White backyard photo.
Other measurements from a fixed object like the stair post to portions of his body or even the pistol appear to be the same or near so. There's no way you could move and go back to the identical spot and take the same position without drawing the image on the back of the camera.
With this in mind then how did he get taller if neither he nor the camera moved. Maybe the camera was on a tripod and lowered which would make him taller but it would do the same to the post which may be a little taller but the height of Oswald seems out of proportion to that of the post or vice-versa. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view, pp. 13-14)
Mytton's discrediting doubling down on his claims about the differences in the distances between background objects and their implications deserves further comment:
Yes, there most certainly are. Let us once again look at the table for paragraph 441 regarding the horizontal parallax measurements in the PEP's report (6 HSCA 178). The difference in the lower-level "a" distance between 133-A and 133-B was measured to be just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "a" distance was found to be just 0.1 mm, or 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was found to be just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch.
The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects in the photos, unless they have super-human vision. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of a high-powered magnifying glass or a microscope, just as the PEP did.
Let's continue: The difference in the lower-level "b" distance between 133-A and 133-B was found to be just 0.5 mm, or 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "b" distance was found to be 0.7 mm, or 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.
If this were true, the horizontal and vertical changes in the camera's position would not have been "slight" and "very small." You seem to keep forgetting that the PEP could only determine camera movement by ratioing the parallax measurements, and that those incidents of parallax were so tiny that they were expressed in millimeters and were only detected with the aid of computer analysis and microscopes.
But if the differences in the background-object distances had actually been larger "in the real world," this would have proved the camera's movement was larger "in the real world," a point that the PEP would have loudly trumpeted.
The PEP produced screen-size enlargements of the photos as visual aids for their testimony to the Select Committee. Not once did Kirk and McCamy refer to a difference in background-object distances that could be seen with the naked by the committee members.
Huh? Again, the PEP admitted that the changes in the camera's horizontal and vertical position between exposures were "slight" and "very small." Furthermore, the PEP did not even measure for changes in the camera's angular position, implying the impossible scenario that the camera did not tilt in the slightest degree at any angle between exposures.
And please tell me how the PEP could prove that the same background was not used in the backyard photos when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos, especially given the fact that the backyard figure's pose in 133-C is different than his poses in the two other photos. I can't help but suspect that the PEP did measure for parallax in 133-C, realized the measurements and resulting camera movement were problematic, and decided to simply ignore 133-C when it came to parallax and camera movement.
This is just silly, given the difficulty that the PEP had in detecting any change in the camera's vertical position. They could only find one determination for vertical parallax and had to resort to claiming that vertical parallax was established because the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of a part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B (6 HSCA 179).
Moreover, in her later years, no longer under threat of deportation, Marina stated in a taped interview that she did not take the backyard rifle photos in evidence.
Years earlier, when she was still claiming she'd taken the pictures, she said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos. Humm, no way. The Imperial Reflex 620 had no viewfinder that you could hold up to your eye--it only had a waist-level viewfinder on its top, which required you to hold the camera below the level of your head and to look down into the viewfinder.
As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.
MG: Below are some of the problems with the backyard rifle photos noted by Hershal Womack, a professor of photography at Texas Tech University...
...which doesn't address the OP or the point I raised about the OP. You're down to a Galloping Gish, blowing smoke across the pasture.
MG: Yes, there most certainly are {microscopic distances}. Let us once again look at the table for paragraph 441 regarding the horizontal parallax measurements in the PEP's report (6 HSCA 178). The difference in the lower-level "a" distance between 133-A and 133-B was measured to be just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "a" distance was found to be just 0.1 mm, or 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was found to be just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch.
The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects in the photos, unless they have super-human vision. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of a high-powered magnifying glass or a microscope, just as the PEP did.
Let's continue: The difference in the lower-level "b" distance between 133-A and 133-B was found to be just 0.5 mm, or 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "b" distance was found to be 0.7 mm, or 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.
Of all of the measurements you've given here the smallest is 0.1mm. "Microscopic" is generally held to be "too small to be seen by the naked eye". For reference, a dime is a little over 1 mm thick. The tiny ridges along the circunference of a dime are spaced every 0.18mm. The width of a human hair ranges from 0.18mm to 0.018mm, and is typcially held to be .075mm on average. People can generally distinguish the ridges along a dime's edge or a human hair. Therefore, "microscopic" refers to something even smaller than the smallest number you've given, much less any of the others.
MG: But if the differences in the background-object distances had actually been larger "in the real world," this would have proved the camera's movement was larger "in the real world," a point that the PEP would have loudly trumpeted.
Says who? This is really just some irrational projection you hurl against McCamy, Kirk, et al, because you have nothing left to argue with. Again, all the PEP needed to do is show that parallax existed in order to show that the backgrounds are not identical. There is no requirement that it be either larger or smaller than some amount. The PEP also reported that they were able to view the different photos stereoscopically, which also demonstrates that the backgrounds are not identical.
MG: And please tell me how the PEP could prove that the same background was not used in the backyard photos when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos, especially given the fact that the backyard figure's pose in 133-C is different than his poses in the two other photos. I can't help but suspect that the PEP did measure for parallax in 133-C, realized the measurements and resulting camera movement were problematic, and decided to simply ignore 133-C when it came to parallax and camera movement
As I've mentioned before, the claim that A,B and C are identical can be completely refuted by showing any combination of: A and B are not identical, B and C are not identical, A and C are not identical. This is basic logic, and is apparently beyond your comprehension.
MG: This is just silly, given the difficulty that the PEP had in detecting any change in the camera's vertical position. They could only find one determination for vertical parallax and had to resort to claiming that vertical parallax was established because the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of a part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B (6 HSCA 179).
They only needed to find one example to disprove the contention that the backgrounds in the the photos are identical. Again, basic logic.
MG: As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.
If you want that done, do it yourself.
-
MG: Below are some of the problems with the backyard rifle photos noted by Hershal Womack, a professor of photography at Texas Tech University...
...which doesn't address the OP or the point I raised about the OP. You're down to a Galloping Gish, blowing smoke across the pasture.
You again showcase your ability to misread and misrepresent. I made several points in the OP, only one of which was incorrect.
In the OP I pointed out that Mytton makes the utterly bogus claim that the incidents of parallax in the photos are "massive" and "vast," when in fact they were so small that they could only be detected with the aid of computers and microscopes and were found to be matter of millimeters, sometimes 0.1 mm.
In the OP, I discussed Mytton's claim that the backyard photos are "tiny," when in fact 133-C Dees is an 8 x 10 first-generation print and 133-A Stovall is a first-generation 5 x 8 print. The PEP was able to make high-quality enlargements from 133-A DeM that could be displayed on a large-screen viewer because 133-A DeM was “probably made in a high-quality enlarger with a high-quality lens” (6 H 148).
In addition, in the OP I repeated one of the central points about the backyard photos as revealed by the PEP's parallax measurements, i.e., that the differences in the distances between the background objects would be far greater if the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, that there is no way that a cheap top-viewfinder handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures would produce photos that contain differences in background-object distances that are so small they could only be detected with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes.
Did you just "forget" about these points that I made in the OP?
MG: Yes, there most certainly are {microscopic distances}. Let us once again look at the table for paragraph 441 regarding the horizontal parallax measurements in the PEP's report (6 HSCA 178). The difference in the lower-level "a" distance between 133-A and 133-B was measured to be just 0.8 mm, or 0.03 inches, or 3/100ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "a" distance was found to be just 0.1 mm, or 0.003 inches, or 3/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was found to be just 1.1 mm/0.04 inches or 1/25th of an inch.
The difference in the upper-level "a" distance was the largest of the differences in the horizontal parallax measurements. The naked eye cannot a detect a difference of 1.1 mm/0.04 inches in the distances between background objects in the photos, unless they have super-human vision. To detect a difference of just 1/25th of an inch in the distances between the same objects in two photos, a person would need the aid of a high-powered magnifying glass or a microscope, just as the PEP did.
Let's continue: The difference in the lower-level "b" distance between 133-A and 133-B was found to be just 0.5 mm, or 0.019 inches, or 19/1000ths of an inch. The difference in the middle-level "b" distance was found to be 0.7 mm, or 0.027 inches, or 27/1000ths of an inch.
Of all of the measurements you've given here the smallest is 0.1mm. "Microscopic" is generally held to be "too small to be seen by the naked eye". For reference, a dime is a little over 1 mm thick. The tiny ridges along the circunference of a dime are spaced every 0.18mm. The width of a human hair ranges from 0.18mm to 0.018mm, and is typcially held to be .075mm on average. People can generally distinguish the ridges along a dime's edge or a human hair. Therefore, "microscopic" refers to something even smaller than the smallest number you've given, much less any of the others.
So you're doubling down on Mytton's ludicrous claim that the background-distance differences are "very visible" to the naked eye. Why, then, was the PEP only able to detect them with photogrammetric measurements done with the aid of computers and microscopes?
Your comparisons of dimes and human hair are patently ridiculous. First off, a dime is 1.35 mm thick, not just "a little over 1 mm thick." Second, simply discerning the existence of ridges on the side of a dime or being able to see a human hair has nothing to do with detecting the kinds of differences in the distances between background objects that the PEP found in the backyard photos.
Tell me, what do you think would happen if someone produced a dime with ridges that were 0.08 mm apart instead of the usual 0.18 mm apart, and if you showed the altered dime and a regular dime to 10 people and asked them if they noticed any differences in the two dimes' ridges, without the aid of any magnification? Huh? How many people do you think would detect the difference in the spacing of the ridges without any kind of magnification and without holding the dimes very close to their eyes but holding them no closer than 12 inches to their eyes? And if any of those 10 people said they thought the ridges were closer together on one of the dimes, how many of them do you think would be able to tell you that the amount of difference was 0.1 mm? Huh?
Similarly, of course, if a human hair is held close enough to you, you will be able to see/discern it, but that has nothing to do with the parallax measurements discussion. Take a deep breath and think about this: If you took two photos, say 8 x 10 in size, and moved an object in the background of one of the photos by 0.075 mm, are you seriously suggesting that people would be able to detect the 0.075 mm difference in the distance between the two objects without any magnification? Really?
A 0.1 mm difference in the distance between two background objects in two photos is indeed microscopic, which is why the PEP had to use computers and microscopes to do their photogrammetric measurements.
MG: But if the differences in the background-object distances had actually been larger "in the real world," this would have proved the camera's movement was larger "in the real world," a point that the PEP would have loudly trumpeted.
Says who? This is really just some irrational projection you hurl against McCamy, Kirk, et al, because you have nothing left to argue with.
Oh, come on. You can't really believe that the PEP would have said nothing if they had found evidence that the camera's movement was not just "slight" and "very small" but was much larger.
Mytton's whole argument about camera movement "in the real world," as if the PEP was talking about some other world, is nonsensical and further evidence of his utter incompetence. The PEP was talking about the camera's movement "in the real world." What other world does Mytton think the PEP was referencing when they said the camera moved to the left only "slightly" and that the change in its vertical position was "very small"? Mars? Venus? Some unseen parallel world?
Again, all the PEP needed to do is show that parallax existed in order to show that the backgrounds are not identical. There is no requirement that it be either larger or smaller than some amount.
Nonsense. They needed to show that the amount of parallax was reasonable and plausible in light of how the photos were allegedly made, but instead they found that the differences between the background objects were only tiny fractions of an inch and had to be measured with the aid of computers and microscopes.
Furthermore, they didn't even measure 133-C for parallax, a fact that you blithely and incredibly dismiss as meaningless.
The PEP also reported that they were able to view the different photos stereoscopically, which also demonstrates that the backgrounds are not identical.
One, the PEP experts knew full well that fake photos can also be viewed stereoscopically as long as they show two different perspectives, even if the perspectives are only slightly different.
Two, I have repeatedly said that the identical-background argument is not necessary to prove the photos are fake, and that the main point about the backgrounds is that the microscopic differences in the distances between their objects could not have been produced by a handheld camera that was handed back and forth between exposures but indicate that a tripod was used and that Marina was not the photographer.
Again, in her later years, Marina said in a record interview that she did not take the backyard photos in evidence. When she was pressured and manipulated into going along with the official story, she said that she held the camera up to her eye to take the photos (a physical impossibility with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera), that she only took one or two photos, that she had never seen the white sling, and that she had not seen a telescopic sight on the rifle.
MG: And please tell me how the PEP could prove that the same background was not used in the backyard photos when they only did parallax measurements on two of the three photos, especially given the fact that the backyard figure's pose in 133-C is different than his poses in the two other photos. I can't help but suspect that the PEP did measure for parallax in 133-C, realized the measurements and resulting camera movement were problematic, and decided to simply ignore 133-C when it came to parallax and camera movement
As I've mentioned before, the claim that A,B and C are identical can be completely refuted by showing any combination of: A and B are not identical, B and C are not identical, A and C are not identical. This is basic logic, and is apparently beyond your comprehension.
This is your idea of "basic logic"?! How do you know that 133-C's background is not identical to 133-A's or 133-B's? You don't, because the PEP, incredibly, failed to do parallax measurements on the photo (or, if they did, the never mentioned them). If 133-C's background were identical to 133-A's background, that would be a huge problem for your side. Or, if 133-C's background were identical to 133-B's background, that would also be a huge problem for your side.
MG: This is just silly, given the difficulty that the PEP had in detecting any change in the camera's vertical position. They could only find one determination for vertical parallax and had to resort to claiming that vertical parallax was established because the small black rectangle on the bottom edge of a part of the fence appears more elongated in the vertical direction in 133-A than it does in 133-B (6 HSCA 179).
They only needed to find one example to disprove the contention that the backgrounds in the the photos are identical. Again, basic logic.
You mean basic nonsense. Let me give you some genuine basic logic: If you're claiming to prove that the backgrounds in three photos are not identical, you cannot establish this claim by only doing parallax measurements on two of the photos. Or, if you're claiming that the floor plans for three houses are not identical, you cannot establish this claim by only examining the floor plans of two of the houses.
MG: As I've said before, if you want to prove the backyard photos are authentic/pristine, conduct a reenactment with people who don't know what they're reenacting. Have them use an Imperial Reflex 620 camera and take three photos in the manner alleged for the backyard photos, and see if their photos contain the same tiny differences in the distances between background objects and if their photos exhibit only "slight" and "very small" horizontal and vertical camera movement between exposures.
And while you're at it, do parallax measurements to determine if there was any change in the camera's angular position between exposures. Unless the participants miraculously manage to avoid tilting the camera even in the slightest degree, you will find that the camera's angular position changed between exposures.
If you want that done, do it yourself.
UH-HUH. We both know that any such reenactment would prove the backyard photos to be fraudulent.
Physicist Philip Stahl, who has written books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found that they must have been tampered with:
"Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original. However, +30% shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same." (http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html)
Stahl decided to conduct the analysis after reading Hany Farid’s study, which supposedly proved that the backyard photos are authentic. Stahl reviewed Farid’s study and concluded it was severely flawed, as he discusses in the above-mentioned article and in his article “Hany Farid’s Pixelated Illusions”:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html
Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked. If anyone is wondering about Charnin’s credentials, in 1965, he earned a BA in mathematics from Queens College. In 1969, he earned an MS in applied mathematics from Adelphi University, and in 1973, he earned an MS in operations research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York. Here is Charnin’s article “Mathematical Proof that the Oswald Backyard Photos Were Faked”:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/jfk-mathematical-proof-that-the-oswald-backyard-photos-were-faked/
I would recommend Charnin’s 2014 book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.
-
Physicist Philip Stahl, who has written books on physics and astronomy, did a pixel analysis of the backyard rifle photos and found that they must have been tampered with:
"Given some original values dx1, dy1, the mapping will yield diffused dimensions that are within about 30% of the original. However, +30% shows that there clearly had to have been tampering such that the images are not the same." (http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html)
Stahl decided to conduct the analysis after reading Hany Farid’s study, which supposedly proved that the backyard photos are authentic. Stahl reviewed Farid’s study and concluded it was severely flawed, as he discusses in the above-mentioned article and in his article “Hany Farid’s Pixelated Illusions”:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html
Former professor of mathematics Richard Charnin has studied the backyard rifle photos and has likewise concluded they have been faked. If anyone is wondering about Charnin’s credentials, in 1965, he earned a BA in mathematics from Queens College. In 1969, he earned an MS in applied mathematics from Adelphi University, and in 1973, he earned an MS in operations research from the Polytechnic Institute of New York. Here is Charnin’s article “Mathematical Proof that the Oswald Backyard Photos Were Faked”:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/jfk-mathematical-proof-that-the-oswald-backyard-photos-were-faked/
I would recommend Charnin’s 2014 book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy.
Seriously, Griffith???
This is exactly like asking my Expert local Auto Mechanic to perform Heart Surgery, it's just Bonkers!
Why do you think that continually scouring the internet for like minded Kooks who have no expertise in the given subject will further your insane agenda? Yet you do this time, and time again, it's no wonder that the Scholarly JFKA community very rarely supports your Lunacy!
Did these Laymen have the original materials to study(as did the HSCA's experts) or did they study "photocopy" quality images like that other Loon, Thompson??
BTW, have you come to any conclusion about exactly what "slightly" represents?" 1mm, 1cm, 10cm or precisely what? Hahahahaha!
JohnM
-
Uhh, no... YOU conduct the reenactment. YOU do the measurements. It's not the responsibility of other people to validate your long-debunked blathering about these photos, which have been proven authentic time and time again.
Isn't this hilarious, it's a no win situation because when the results refute Griffith's nonsense he will just allege that we manipulated the photos using a similar method that he believes originally took place, and if Griffith recreates the backyard photos we can't trust him to be honest.
But what it does reveal is the warped mind of a JFKA conspiracy theorist, and that no level of proof can sway their faith based beliefs.
JohnM
-
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?
-
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.
Norman Mailer claims in his book Oswald's Tale that a photo from Lawrence Schiller's 1967 reenactment contains variant shadows identical to those in the backyard photos. I contacted Mailer, and he referred me to Schiller. We exchanged a couple letters, and I finally got Schiller to send me his photo. When I received it, I was struck by the fact that the picture quite obviously does not duplicate the variant shadows, especially the neck shadows. I wrote back to Schiller and pointed out some of the obvious differences between his photo and the backyard photos. He never responded. I wrote to Mailer and informed him of the obvious discrepancies between Schiller's photo and the backyard pictures. He did not respond either.
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