JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Bill Chapman]

Note the ad-Homs liberally sprinkled on yet another MTG word salad.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You really think the pickets in these three photographs should have spread apart by centimeters between exposes? That the photographer's feet shifted two-or-three feet laterally between poses?

Do you just not understand the basic science here? Do you not grasp the problem? Or are you just throwing mud into the air and hoping some of it will seem credible? You and Mytton either simply do not grasp the problem or you are pretending the problem does not exist and making arguments that have nothing to do with the problem.

All the ducking and dodging in the world will not explain how a top-view handheld camera that had a lever instead of a button, and that was supposedly passed back and forth between exposures, could have produced three photos with backgrounds so similar that the differences between the objects in the backgrounds are so small that they had to be measured photogrammetrically and were found to be so incredibly tiny as to range between 0.1 mm and 1.1 mm. You keep dancing around this point.

And you don't mention how the changes are consistent with how each photo was taken.

• In all cases, more of the background is shown to the right and less to the left on CE 133-B as compared to CE 133-A. Since the shadow analysis indicated that CE 133-B was taken before CE 133-A, the parallax indicates that the camera was moved slightly to the left between these two exposures.

LOL! This is what happens when you quote stuff without understanding the science behind it (or when you are unwilling to address the problem). The whole point is that the camera would have moved far, far, far more than "slightly to the left" if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged.

The parallax measurements show that the camera barely moved to the left at all between those two exposures, so little, so slightly, in fact, that the largest variation was only 1.1 mm in one of the horizontal parallax measurements. Nope, not on this planet.

• Since less background appeared above the gate bolt. on 133A than on 133B, the camera was moved slightly downward between these two exposures.

More comedy. Again, the point is that the camera should have moved far, far, far more than the parallax measurements indicate it did, assuming, of course, that the photos were taken as alleged.

The camera was moved so slightly downward that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches. To grasp how tiny a change this is, consider that 1/16th of an inch is 0.0625 inches. So we're talking about a difference that is 11 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch. Not on this planet.
 

Between the first and second pickets from the left gate, just below the bottom edge of the upper horizontal member, a small black rectangle appears. It appears more elongated in the vertical direction on CE 133-A, as one would expect if the camera were moved down between exposures, exposing more of the dark area in the background.

This is your same bumbling, bogus argument, only this time regarding the vertical movement. Yes, the camera was moved downward, and the downward movement was impossibly slight. The camera was moved downward so slightly that the gate-bolt-to-screen distance, adjusted for scaling distance, was found to be only 0.15 mm. Not on this planet.

As I have suggested before, why don't you WC apologists pool your money and perform a simple, inexpensive reenactment with the same model Imperial Reflex camera, or with a reasonably similar camera, and prove that someone taking three photos with such a camera and handing it back and forth between exposures could take photos that would contain such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects?

So now we'll be hearing that the "forgers" took all that into account.

LOL! You have no clue what you are talking about. What "all that"? All you have done is repeat facts that prove the very point I've been making.

The forgers would not have needed to take "all that" into account because the "all that" was the result of using the same background and only slightly keystoning it to try to make it less obvious that they used the same background! The "all that" simply reinforces the fact that the parallax measurements prove that the camera moved impossibly tiny amounts between exposures. If you have an explanation for these impossibly small variations, let's see it.

The Commission was evidently referring to the head when they used the word "skull". Because their own footnote references Humes testimony about the scalp wound measurements.

Uh, no, the commission said "the skull," not "the scalp." I'm pretty sure they knew the difference. Yes, the footnote references Humes' testimony, in which, at one point, Humes said the same thing:

"So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6 millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull in this area." (2 H 352)

What do you not understand about this plain English? Oh, that's right: You still won't admit that in medical terms "corresponding" means "match," "fit," "agree with." When you acknowledge this definition, Humes was plainly saying that when they reflected the scalp, they could see that the wound in the skull matched the wound in the scalp, which was 6 mm wide.

So, "apparently," the author of this section of the report chose to rely on the autopsy report and on Humes's statement quoted above, and not on Humes's attempt to create wiggle room about the size of the wound in the skull. It is revealing that you, instead, choose to ignore the autopsy report and to ignore Humes's 2 H 352 statement, and instead rely solely on his waffling attempt to create wiggle room for the size of the skull wound.

Little Donald Trump won't let nothing go and has to have the largest font size in the room. The difference is that the Commission provided the context of elastic recoil (and for skin if we go by their footnote). Which means a temporary enlargement that settles naturally to a slightly-smaller size. Compare with your scoffing tweet:

    "The WC comically said that the skull bone shrunk."

But that is exactly what the WC said--the report even used the verb "shrinks." Shall we read it yet again?:

"The dimension of 6 millimeters, somewhat smaller than the diameter of a 6.5-millimeter bullet, was caused by the elastic recoil of the skull which shrinks the size of an opening after a missile passes through it." (WCR, p. 86)

So the WC said that when a bullet strikes skull bone, the supposed "elastic recoil" of the skull "SHRINKS" the hole after the bullet goes through it so that the hole is smaller than the diameter of the bullet.

You do realize that "shrunk" is the past tense of "shrink," right?

Why don't you look up the verb "to shrink" while you're looking up the verbs "infer" and "imply," because you seem to have a problem with those verbs too. Or, maybe find some question or statement in the WC records uttered by "Mr. SPECTOR" that supports your twisting of language because you don't like what the language says. [/list]

[John Mytton]

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

[John Mytton]

You realize the HSCA were not talking about the parallax differences in terms of life-scale?

     "such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between their background objects"

Yep. It appears you don't.

Yep. It appears you don't.

 

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Note the ad-Homs liberally sprinkled on yet another MTG word salad.

Someone who uses the term "CTards" has no business whining about "ad-homs".

[Bill Chapman]

Someone who uses the term "CTards" has no business whining about "ad-homs".

3 times on this version of the forum
Last one Sept 2019

[Michael Carney]

Could someone please give me a one min block of instruction as to how to post a picture, can't figure it out. Or direct me to a tutorial, thanks very much.

[Bill Chapman]

Could someone please give me a one min block of instruction as to how to post a picture, can't figure it out. Or direct me to a tutorial, thanks very much.

Go to postimages.org
(You don't have to sign up)

1) Upload your image


2) Choose 'Direct Link'

3) Use the 'image' function here


4) Result