JFK Assassination Forum

Quote:
"Perhaps I've misunderstood but I was under the impression that, as far as your 'study' is concerned, ALL relevant witness testimony has been completely ignored, with no explanation as to why this should be the case.
I could accept your "excessive testimony variability" argument if the testimony of the witnesses in question supported such an early shot. But, with the possible exception of Rosemary Willis, they don't.
To the casual observer it looks like you avoided using their witness testimony because it reveals that your interpretation of their actions was nothing more than wishful thinking or projection.
Didn't it give you pause for thought that the witnesses you were using uniformly disagreed with your interpretations of their 'reactions'?
[/quote]


To be clear the Perception time study’s intent was to use only human reactions to ascertain the timing of the first shot. It had nothing to do with testimonies or ignoring testimonies or disregarding testimonies, it had nothing to do with testimonies period. A testimony analysis is something completely different and that is what I was referring to wrt to the Anchored testimony analysis. Which happened to support the ~z124 timing.

If you want to insist that I ignore all relevant testimonies for the Anchored testimony test, that’s incorrect, but it’s true I did not consider testimonies that did not meet a criteria of an Anchored Testimony (hence I am guilty in one respect since I did not consider a lot of testimonies relevant because they did not meet the criteria for that particular type of analysis being conducted), and that has nothing to do with what I expected testimonies to say or not. I ignored testimony that would have agreed well with the placement I expected, like Tina Towner and Howard Brennan, because they did not meet the criteria of an Anchored Testimony.

The anchored testimony looked at any testimony around that time specifically identifying the President/President limo at the time of hearing the first shot. I don’t recall finding or using any presidential limo anchored testimony coming from the vice presidential car. I think the position of the Presidential limo at the first shot is quite important to understanding the line of sight the sniper had from the sniper’s nest to the Presidential limo when taking the first shot.

Now as far as why people on the street did not react like those in the limo, consider the following. First consider the reactions of those in the limo. The reactions of those in the limo were voluntary reactions, and appeared to be reactions consistent with sound localization attempts after a surprising loud sharp sound behind and above them, all reactions were within 0.55 seconds which is indicative of a common stimulus and is predicted by a Perception Time distribution model.  Since there was probably not a lot of great new visual stimulus at that time to grab their attention, they likely simply all looked around and wondered “What the hell was that”. Many believed it was a firecracker but looked around anyway. Some people further on down Elm did the same thing but with not as much head motion. This is what James Tague said he also did, glance around up there for the idiot throwing a firecracker that happened about 5 seconds before the second shot sounded. These were all voluntary reactions to a surprising stimulus.

Now consider yourself as a bystander up on Elm on the side of the road as the Limo went by. You came to Dealey Plaza to see the President, and many also wanted to see Jackie and her dress. You waited over an half an hour for the motorcade to show up. Right as they were approaching or driving by you, a firecracker is shot off. At that time there was a ton of visual stimuli right in front of you with the President and Jackie and the limo; do you ignore that intense visual stimuli right there in front of you, or do you follow the audible stimulus and turn around to spend time trying to find what kid threw a firecracker. Net, do you ignore the sound as an annoyance and keep your attention on the Limo. If folks look for the kid with the firecracker they totally miss JFK and Jackie go by, their whole intent for the day. What would you do at that time if you did not consider the perceived firecracker a personal threat, look for the kid that threw the firecracker or continue to look at JFK and Jackie?

I encourage you to develop your theories using your choice of testimonies, maybe others will build on what you are doing. You may find the exact meaning of the testimony “They had just turned the corner, straightened up… heading down towards the underpass” with respect to the Presidential limo position, or from what you find may also apply to the vice president car, and perhaps others as well.

In the meantime, I will look for other analysis on this question as well. At this point the anchored testimony results, the perception time analysis from the z-film, the Dorman film evaluation, the overall timing of all three shots using Zapruder startle reaction time ~210ms, and some extended Jiggle analysis, all point to an early shot before z133 being triggered around z124.

Why do you think that "getaway car" decided to park alongside the Island? That getaway car was parked within spitting distance of the "wide open" huge gates. How long do you think it would take a shooter and maybe a spotter to: (1) exit the 6th Floor sniper's nest, (2) travel down the stairwell to the 1st floor, (3) walk through the "wide open" huge gates and onto the Elm Street Extension and (4) climb into that car that was parked in a "No Parking At Any Time" zone alongside the Island? One minute tops? DPD Officer Smith and DPD Motorcycle Officer Baker rushing toward the TSBD less than 30 seconds after the kill shot interrupted this getaway plan.

Dear Comrade Storing,

When's your book coming out?

"Former" KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin and his "useful idiot" (or worse), Donald Trump, want to know so they can have Fox News, OANN and NewsMax start "plugging" it now!

-- Tom

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.

As he (Nechiporenko) points out in the book, shortly after the assassination the then head of the KGB (Vladimir Semichastny) secretly reported to the Politburo and personally to Khrushchev that that KGB did not recruit Oswald for any operation. They viewed him as too unreliable.---SMG

I think you should say that a claim is made that Semichastny said the KGB did not recruit LHO.

1. The Semichastny story could be a narrative leaked for Western audiences.

2. It may be the KGB did recruit LHO, and elements within the KGB ran LHO, but after the JFKA, the KGB clammed up and claimed it did nothing with LHO and lied to Khrushchev.

Many accept that the CIA misled JFK or other presidents (and the public), and elements within the CIA were rogue.

So why not consider the same is true of the KGB?

In addition, it appears the CIA was riddled with KGB assets in the 1960s.

Bruce Solie's HSCA testimony is nearly comical. He says he believes Nosenko, that the KGB had nothing to do with LHO, as they cannot prove Nosenko is lying about that. When in fact Nosenko had no job roles that would have allowed Nosenko to know one way or the other.

Solie's behavior re Nosenko is hard to fathom, unless Solie was compromised.

It sounds like you're happy with Dale Myers diagram. Even though he seems to have arbitrarily placed Archers truck in an unusual position blocking the sidewalk at the intersection.

I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other.  It doesn't change my opinion on why Oswald walked behind the truck instead of in front of it.