Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Free Book Now Available -- Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed  (Read 32547 times)

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
Advertisement
* Numerous photographic experts have noted that the backgrounds in the backyard rifle photos seem virtually identical, that the differences in the distances between objects are extremely small, and that this is a clear indication that the same background was keystoned and used for all the photos.

Do you even know what it means to apply "keystone" correction to a photograph?

The first image is an original backyard photograph and the second backyard photograph is where I've applied keystone correction to make the right hand posts more parallel with the left hand post.




Now when we directly compare these two images we see that every object within the frame is relatively proportional to each and every object within the image.



Whereas when we compare two separate backyard photos which were taken from different positions we immediately see that the relative distances between the objects is radically different, the distance between the top of the fence to the window behind changes, where the roof behind intersects with the stairs is in a different position, the top of the window frame on the left hand side shows more of the top surface, etc etc.



Btw please don't embarrass yourself any further, show these images to someone that you claim is an "expert" and let's see where that goes.

JohnM
« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 12:27:54 AM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum


Online Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277

When a camera moves between exposures during the taking of photos of the same scene, this will cause the distances between background objects in the scene to change, because the camera’s horizontal and vertical position relative to the background changed and because the camera’s distance from the target changed.

If the backyard rifle photos were taken in the manner alleged, i.e., taken with a cheap handheld camera that was passed back and forth between exposures, there would be substantial differences in the distances between background objects from photo to photo.

The three photographs differ among themselves in camera tilt, parallax, etc. Changes caused by the camera being held in a unique manner for each exposure. There's shadow movement seen on objects as well, meaning time has passed between each picture

Don't see what the camera being "cheap" has to do with anything.

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Do you even know what it means to apply "keystone" correction to a photograph?

Now when we directly compare these two images we see that every object within the frame is relatively proportional to each and every object within the image.

Whereas when we compare two separate backyard photos which were taken from different positions we immediately see that the relative distances between the objects is radically different, the distance between the top of the fence to the window behind changes, where the roof behind intersects with the stairs is in a different position, the top of the window frame on the left hand side shows more of the top surface, etc etc.

Btw please don't embarrass yourself any further, show these images to someone that you claim is an "expert" and let's see where that goes.

Yeah, uh-huh. Obviously, you have no clue how to explain the minute differences between background objects in the photos; in fact, you deny they exist! You claim there are large differences in the distances between background objects. You do so, even though I quoted McCamy's admission that the differences are "small," "very small," and "slight," and even though I quoted the HSCA PEP's measurements, which document that the differences are incredibly small.

Since you have no idea how to explain this problem, you once again posted your silly GIF and are posturing as though I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Your GIF alone shows you don't even understand the basics about the problem the HSCA PEP was trying to explain.

I notice that you said nothing about the DPD backyard rifle prints released in 1992 and the fact that they are clearly from a stage in the fabrication of the backyard photos. Surely with your self-professed expertise in photographic evidence, you can provide a rational, believe explanation for why a DPD officer posed for pictures in Oswald's backyard and struck a pose that was never seen in any alleged Oswald backyard rifle photos until 1976.

And surely, since you are pretending that you know far more than I do about photographic evidence, you should have no problem refuting my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos." Here's the URL again:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/fraud.htm

Jerry Organ doesn't understand why the camera's cheapness is relevant. Well, here's why: Cheap cameras, such as the Imperial Reflex, shake more easily and are not built to take high-quality pictures. The lower the camera quality, the higher the odds that your pictures will be less than optimally clear.





« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 03:25:20 AM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
For anyone who might be interested, I have decided to stop selling my book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed and to make it available free of charge online in PDF format. The book is my reply to Gerald Posner's book Case Closed. The book includes the transcript of my interview with an NSA photographic technician regarding the backyard rifle photos. Here's the link to the book:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf

I asked you this question before but you must have overlooked it. How have you determined that more fragments were recovered from Governor Connally's wrist alone than are missing from CE 399?

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
The three photographs differ among themselves in camera tilt, parallax, etc. Changes caused by the camera being held in a unique manner for each exposure. There's shadow movement seen on objects as well, meaning time has passed between each picture

Don't see what the camera being "cheap" has to do with anything.

Quote
There's shadow movement seen on objects as well, meaning time has passed between each picture

Yep nice pickup Jerry, the electricity wires cast a shadow in different positions onto the stair support post which is proof positive that each photo was taken at a different time.



JohnM

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
I asked you this question before but you must have overlooked it. How have you determined that more fragments were recovered from Governor Connally's wrist alone than are missing from CE 399?



JohnM

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Like anyone actually knows how much lead was missing from CE 399.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1216
Like anyone actually knows how much lead was missing from CE 399.

How much truth was missing from the WC inquiry and Report? Is beyond reasonable doubt a standard of guilt exclusive for still living accused?



Gov. Connally was fortunate not to have been hit by any of these other rounds.:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=35&tab=page



Quote
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
.....
....Mr. BAKER - As we approached the corner there of Main and Houston we were making a right turn, and as I came out behind that building there, which is the county courthouse, the sheriff building, well, there was a strong wind hit me and I almost lost my balance.

Mr. BELIN - How fast would you estimate the speed of your motorcycle as you turned the corner, if you know?
Mr. BAKER - I would say--it wasn't very fast. I almost lost balance, we were just creeping along real slowly.
Mr. DULLES - That is turning from Main into Houston?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - You turned-do you have any actual speed estimate as you turned that corner at all or just you would say very slow?
Mr. BAKER - I would say from around 5 to 6 or 7 miles an hour, because you can't hardly travel under that and you know keep your balance.
Mr. BELIN - From what direction was the wind coming When it hit you?
Mr. BAKER - Due north.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Now, tell us what happened after you turned on to Houston Street?
Mr. BAKER - AS I got myself straightened up there, I guess it took me some 20, 30 feet, something like that, and it was about that time that I heard these shots come out.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Could you just tell us what you heard and what you saw and what you did?
Mr. BAKER - As I got, like I say as I got straightened up there, I was, I don't know when these shots started coming off, I just--it seemed to me like they were high, and I just happened to look right straight up---

Quote
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/folsom.htm

....Mr. ELY - Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this scorebook, assuming for the moment that it was accurately maintained, concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Colonel FOLSOM - Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----
Mr. ELY - You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's scorebook?
Colonel FOLSOM - Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.
Mr. ELY - And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in terms of elevation or windage, he still would have a closer group than that if he were a good shot?
Colonel FOLSOM - Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.
Mr. ELY - And what was his score?
Colonel FOLSOM - Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score of 34 out of a possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his record book. On Wednesday, he got a score of 38, improved four points. Do you want to compute these?
Mr. ELY - I don't see any point in doing this page by page.
I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.
Colonel FOLSOM - No, no, he was not.
His scorebook indicates--as a matter of fact--that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.
Mr. ELY - In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?
Colonel FOLSOM - I would say so....

"Sgt. Schultz" imitations from everyone who allegedly touched ce-399  :

« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 08:18:41 AM by Tom Scully »