A few points in reply to various comments about the backyard rifle photos:
* Any discussion of the backyard rifle photos has to start with the fact that in 1992 we discovered prints that were used in the fabrication process. Before lone-gunman theorists can expect us to address all of their labored, convoluted attempts to explain the indications of tampering in the photos, they need to first and foremost face the fact that the DPD prints released in 1992 show a part of the fabrication process that was used to create the photos.
* The DPD prints released in 1992 are especially revealing and crucial because one of them shows a DPD detective striking a pose that was not officially known to exist among the backyard rifle photos until 1976 when Geneva Dees gave a new backyard rifle photo to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mrs. Dees explained that she found the photo among the belongings of her late husband, former Dallas policeman Roscoe White. The photo is designated as 133-C-Dees. It shows the Oswald figure in a pose that is different from the poses in 133-A and 133-B. So, gee, what was going on with a DPD detective being photographed in Oswald’s backyard and striking a pose that no could have known about at the time, if the DPD’s story about “finding” the photos in Ruth Paine’s garage were true?
* John Mytton does not seem to understand the issue of the virtual sameness of backgrounds. He seems to be mistakenly assuming that the term “virtual sameness of backgrounds” refers to the amount of background visible in each photo and/or the position of the Oswald figure in relation to the background in each picture. It does not. The amount of background seen in the three photos differs. We are talking about the distances between objects in the backgrounds, not the amount of background seen in each photo.
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.
* 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.
* The HSCA photographic evidence panel (PEP) was aware of this problem and sought to explain it. The PEP declared that it had found “measurable” differences in the distances between the background objects. But when you check the PEP’s report, you discover that these differences were incredibly small. PEP member Calvin McCamy acknowledged this in his testimony, although he did not fully explain just how small the differences were. He said that the measurements indicated the camera “moved slightly” between exposures, that the horizontal measurements showed “a small change” in the camera’s horizontal position between exposures, and that the vertical measurements showed a “very small” vertical movement of the camera between exposures.
* Just how small was “small,” “very small,” and “slight”? Incredibly small. The PEP did parallax horizontal and vertical measurements on selected objects in the backgrounds. Parallax measurements are photogrammetric measurements performed to detect the slightest variations in distances between objects in photos.
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. Here are the differences—
in millimeters; yes, millimeters:
a-lower: 0.8 mm
a-middle: 0.1 mm
a-upper: 1.1 mm
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. If fractions are easier to grasp, 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 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:
Gate bolt to screen: 1.7 mm
Scaling distance: 0.3 mm
Gate bolt to screen adjusted for scaling distance: 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B)
If it helps any, here are the measurements as written in the PEP report:
133A: gate bolt to screen =30.4 mm. scaling; dist.=15.5 mm
30.4/15.5=1.96
133B: gate bolt to screen=32.1 mm, scaling dist.=15 .2 mm
32.1/15.2=2.11
You do not have to be a scientist or a mathematician to understand that these are very, very tiny differences. Just try to imagine the odds of the camera ending up in virtually the same horizontal, vertical, and distance position in relation to the target, to within a tiny fraction of an inch each time, after being handed back and forth between each exposure.
Mr. Mee, the NSA photographic expert whom I interviewed, was particularly struck by these amazingly tiny differences in background object distances. He said “no way” the variations would be so small if these photos were taken in the manner alleged. I quote from the transcript of my interview with him:
MTG. Okay. Now, I'd like to ask you about the fact
that the panel found only very small variations in the
distances between objects in the background of the pictures.
Given the way that these photos were supposedly taken, does
that seem possible?
MR. MEE. No, the variations would be greater if these
photographs were taken the way Marina said they were. I mean,
like they showed in the video: She snaps a picture; Oswald walks
over and takes the camera from her; he advances the film; he
hands the camera back to her; he goes back over and assumes
another pose; she aims with the camera again and then takes the
picture; and they go through this process again for the third
photo. No. No way. The camera would have moved more than
just a tiny fraction of an inch.
Even with a professional photographer who's trying to hold the
camera as still as possible, you're going to have more variations
in distance than what they're talking about in these pictures.
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf)
