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.htmJerry 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.
