Recent Posts
A windshield repair person would most likely conclude the windshield damage came from outside...
Bill "Rubbernecking" Greer was likely being put on notice... "don't divulge why you slowed the limo... we can get to you too..."
If Connally was trying to glance at JFK over his right shoulder around Z-180, I would expect to see him turn his head so the light from JFK could reach his eyes.
In his 11 December 1963 statement, Connally said he saw three buildings, including the Country Records building. Do you think he can see those buildings at z180? I don't see how.
Why doesn't Greer have his eyes on the road?
What's Nellie looking at?
Connaly said after the first shot, he turned to his right and tried to catch a glance of JFK over his right shoulder.
Don't you think that's what he's doing in Z-180?
Huh, so a "specular highlight" takes the appearance of cracks on the windshield? The damage disappears because the angle of the windshield to the camera changes, not because it's a "specular highlight."MTG: Huh, so a "specular highlight" takes the appearance of cracks on the windshield? The damage disappears because the angle of the windshield to the camera changes, not because it's a "specular highlight."
As for Altgens 6, I cannot force you to admit you can see what you don't want to admit you can see. Roy Schaeffer noticed the windshield damage in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. Anthony DeFiore also identified windshield damage in Altgens 6 and provided high-quality enlargements of the photo showing the damage. Dr. Mantik has likewise identified windshield damage in the photo and in the same area noted by Weldon, DeFiore, and Schaeffer. But, I'm confident you guys will continue to insist you don't see it.
Regarding my photogrammetry, I had to educate you on the meaning of the term "parallax" (although you did catch me in a math gaffe resulting from the PEP's curious use of the term "results"), while Mytton made the hilarious claim that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos, when in fact the PEP explained that the parallax they found was so tiny that it could only be detected with the aid of computer analysis and high magnification.
For the benefit of other readers, regarding the issue of parallax and the backyard rifle photos, parallax is the apparent shift in an object’s position when viewed from two different points; as applied to the backyard photos, it refers to changes in the camera's position between exposures as indicated by the differences in the distances between background objects in the photos.
The HSCA's photographic experts (PEP) found very small differences between the distances in background objects in the 133-A and 133-B backyard rifle photos, differences that were so small they required the use of “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” to detect (2 HSCA 398, 405). The slight parallax between 133-A and 133-B proves the backyard photos could not have been taken in the manner claimed by the official version.
And note that the PEP only tested for horizontal and vertical parallax and only in two of the photos. Revealingly, they did not test to see if the camera moved angularly in any direction, i.e., if there was any pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position between exposures.
The official story is that Marina Oswald took the three backyard photos and handed the camera to Lee between each exposure so he could forward the film for her. Leaving aside the fact that Marina later said those photos were not the ones she took, if the photos had been taken in this manner, there would have been far greater differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, i.e., the camera's position would have changed much more between exposures, and not just horizontally and vertically but also angularly.
Achieving the extremely small amount of parallax detected in the backyard photos would be difficult to achieve in the alleged circumstances even when using a tripod and a camera that automatically forwarded the film after each exposure. Mr. Brian Mee, an NSA photographer and photographic lab technician, emphasized this point when I interviewed him in the 1990s.
"The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view?usp=sharing
Rosemary Willis' head cannot be seen in z150 because she is behind Croft. When she emerges by z160 her head/hood is turned to the right, which is in the general direction of the President's car. I can't tell where her eyes are looking so I am surprised that you think you can.
Rosemary Willis' head cannot be seen in z150 because she is behind Croft. When she emerges by z160 her head/hood is turned to the right, which is in the general direction of the President's car. I can't tell where her eyes are looking so I am surprised that you think you can.
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z150.jpg
(Note that Rosemary Willis has completely turned around to look in the direction of the TSBD.)
Bennett is looking [to his right] in Z-145, but he is not leaning [to his right] any discernible amount.
If either Hickey or Bennett leans out, it is to look forward.
