Recent Posts11
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Last post by Mitch Todd on Yesterday at 06:46:10 PM »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
No, a bullet hole though automotive safety glass --specifically the "frosted" area around the hole-- reflects white no matter the viewing angle so long as you can see the face of the glass.
MTG: 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
So where are the "high quality enlargements" that show the damage? Without those, this is just name-dropping a cavalcade of crackpots, as Mark Ulrik has already noted.
MTG: Regarding my photogrammetry
You still have no idea what you're talking about, when you talk about photogrammetry.
And the Gish Gallop you just launched is nothing more than an attempt at a diversion and a fringe reset. All the claims you just made have already been destroyed in other threads.
