From what I've read (the Carpenter and Litwin books et cetera), Shaw was assigned to the SOS in the war not the OSS. The SOS was Service of Supply. He was a supply officer who, among other duties, was assigned to help stockpile supplies for the Normandy Invasion; he was not an intelligence officer. According to his military records he was stationed in England, France and Belgium during the war. He was never in Italy.

Roughly ~24,000 people worked for the OSS during the war. Including the famous chef Julia Child (her maiden name was McWilliams).

Here is a list of those people: https://www.archives.gov/files/iwg/declassified-records/rg-226-oss/personnel-database.pdf

Shaw is not on the list.

And, for kicks, here is Julia Child's file. She was a typist and administrative assistant during her service and was paid $2980 each year (she was not a "spy"): https://catalog.archives.gov/medialive/61/1806/2180661/content/arcmedia/oss/McWilliams_Child_Julia.pdf

You have to deal with the fact that all five of the passengers in the limo consciously but rapidly moved their heads between Z-140 and Z-150, as did Glen Bennett and George Hickey in the Secret Service follow-up car, and Rosemary Willis on the other side of the street.

Agents are moving their heads all the time. Their job requires it. You are imagining a turn by Rosemary Willis that is not apparent. She had to move her head to watch out to see where she was going and look at the motorcade.

JFK, Jackie, JBC and Nellie moved their heads to acknowledge the crowd.  Mary Woodward and her friends shouted to the President as he was approaching their position and he and Jackie turned and smiled and waved at them as they passed by. And then there was a “horrible ear shattering noise” followed by two quicker shots. She said she and her friends were the last people he acknowledged.

You are obviously reality-challenged like with Lovelady & Shelley...

The films show the reality and reality dictates that Calvery & Reed had to go from the motorcade spectators to the steps...

You are using a bogus argument to argue against already-proven evidence...

The research community, right on schedule, leaves me alone flapping out in the wind on this...

Shaw was the only OSS agent allowed to work with British intelligence in Italy in WWII...As in the Kennedy conspiracy and Permindex, this showed special deep Intel status...British Intelligence and Permindex shared a hot Cold War front in that area of the world at the time...The same area that Jimi Hendrix manager and MI-6 member Michael Jeffery worked in during his national service in the 1950's...

MTG: So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage?

Weldon's "enlargement" was to project a page from one of Groden's books onto a screen. The printing processes used to manufacture books do not treat photographs very well; Weldon's presentation is then based on an inferior copy of the original. Maybe a multigenerational copy.

The print of Altgens 6 in Groden's book is a good-quality print.

If there's no damage in the area identified by Weldon and many others, why were two subsequent reproductions of Altgens 6 altered to obscure that area, one by a diagonal line and the other by bleaching out the area altogether? Why alter the photo in the very area identified as showing a hole and/or damage if there's nothing there?

There are better copies of the photo out there, and they show that the "damage" isn't damage, or even near the windshield. just like I've said.

Well, again, I can't force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing. It's been some time, but I saw high-quality enlargements of the suspect area in Altgens 6, and I could see damage there. A long list of other researchers can see damage there, but you say you don't see it.

Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.

Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.

I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!

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

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

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

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

You are a genuine quack on this issue. I answered every one of these arguments in the thread on the backyard rifle photos, but here you are repeating them again as if they're still valid.

The HSCA PEP was talking about the movement of the camera "in the real world" when the photos were allegedly taken. Do you not understand this?

As I asked you before, if the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" between the backgrounds of the two backyard photos, why did they report that their photogrammetric measurements found that the camera moved only “slightly to the left” and only “slightly downward” between exposures, and that the camera’s vertical movement was “very small” (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416)?

Again, the PEP's ultimate aim was to determine if the camera moved "in the real world" between each exposure of the film, and they found that it moved only "slightly to the left" and "slightly downward," that its vertical movement was "very small." And, again, they didn't even measure to determine if the camera moved angularly. Why not?

And, no, the backyard photos they analyzed (133-A and 133-B) are not "tiny photos." I debunked this falsehood in the backyard rifle photos thread, but you just keep repeating it. Here's what I pointed out to you about your "tiny photos" claim:

"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.

Remember? Do you ever wonder why the PEP never described 133-A and 133-B as "tiny photos"?

The distances between background objects were so small that they could only be detected via “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” (2 HSCA 398, 405). This wasn't because the photos were "tiny," but because the background differences themselves were extremely small.

This is not a bit surprising, since the PEP determined from these measurements that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and down. If the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, the camera movement would have been far, far greater.

One of your comments deserves special attention:

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

This comment is further proof that you have no clue what you're talking about and are trying to bluff and bluster your way through. I guess the PEP experts must have been retarded, because they didn't even measure for angular movement, but only for the camera's horizontal and vertical position.

You haven't "proved" anything about the camera's upward tilt. Your goofy graphics are not proof of anything. To determine the camera's angular movement, you would need to do more photogrammetric measurements, not just measurements designed to detect a change in the camera's horizonal or vertical position.

Yes, your graphics are indeed goofy. You talk like you really don't understand what the PEP experts said or did.

Folks, compare John Mytton's comments with my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos."