A lot of people were there in Dealey Plaza, and they gave different versions of what happened. Some of them have to be wrong because they can't all be right. You [Andrew Mason] have never understood that.

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?

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.

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:

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."

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...