What?! LOL! You either cannot read or you are hoping no one will go back and review our dialogue. I have addressed this silly GIF of yours several times. Your GIF shows that you simply do not grasp the basic issue here.
Folks, go back to my dialogues with Mr. Mytton. You'll see that I repeatedly explained to him that his supposed evidence of "massive" changes in the distances between background objects in the backyard photos was spurious, that his "evidence" showed that he fundamentally does not understand the issue.
"Massive" parallax changes?! What a joke. The changes had to be measured in millimeters. Let us take a look, again, at the parallax measurements that the HSCA PEP published:
The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. The horizontal parallax measurements were done on points on the fence at three levels on 133-A and 133-B. There was an “a” measurement and a “b” measurement, each done at three levels. The differences had to be expressed in millimeters:
a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 millimeter
a-upper: 1.1 millimeter
b-lower: 0.5 mm
b-middle: 0.7 mm
b-upper: 0.1 mm
The largest difference was 1.1 mm, which equals 0.043 inches. 0.043 inches as a fraction is 11/256ths of an inch. By comparison, 1/16th of inch is 1.59 mm. So 1.1 mm is 30% smaller than 1/16th of an inch. And, again, that was the largest difference.
The vertical parallax measurements revealed equally tiny differences. These measurements were done on two objects on the fence. To account for differences in magnification, the measurements were related to the distance from the left edge of one picket to the left edge of the next, and the scaling distance was measured on the two center pickets of the four pickets on the fence. The differences--which, here too, had to be expressed in millimeters:
For a start I said there was a massive amount of parallax changes, i.e. the distances between each and every object in the backyard photos show a parallax change hence my usage of "massive amount of parallax changes" and for the record shows that these multiple parallax changes are definitely not a simple keystone adjustment, so STOP saying there was.
Secondly, you're either being really dishonest or absolutely clueless, I asked you before what these millimeter changes are relative to, are we talking about a postage stamp size photo, a newspaper size photo, an actual size from the location photo or a billboard size photo? A close look at the actual HSCA document shows that the size of the post to the lower picket that the HSCA measured was only 6.8mm(0.27 inch), a measurement that you conveniently keep leaving out of your posts because without context the quoted measurements that you mindlessly keep repeating are meaningless.
The recovered de Mohrenschildt photo appears to be about the size of the photo that correlates to the millimeter measurements used by the HSCA and as we can see the overall width of the photo is less than 5.5 inches which is proportionally many times less than the actual size of the real world location. Doh!
JohnM
