[Ben Holmes]

(08-04-2016, 09:56 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-03-2016, 02:57 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-03-2016, 09:58 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 03:19 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You're lying again, Mark.

I stated that both you and Patrick admit that Chaney was closer.

THAT IS A FACT!

You cannot refute that fact with a lie.

Huh? I have no problem with him being closer. I measured the difference in windshield sizes to be in the order of 5%. He could be up to 7-8% closer and still not appear in the corresponding Z frame.

That he's closer is evidence for the fact that Chaney is right where you see him in the photo.

No. That would put him in the order of 25% closer. There's no evidence for that.

Again, simply irrefutable by your mere statement...

You cannot deny that you see Chaney right where I put him - next to JFK. You cannot deny that Chaney himself implies that this is where he was. You cannot deny that the evidence supports that...

Sigh. We've been over this before. You're misrepresenting what Chaney said. And, no, I don't see Chaney right next to JFK (in 3D space). I can understand why someone might get the mistaken impression that he was, but that's all. Try asking your friends to estimate the distance XB (see below) by looking at the photo. Do you think any of them would answer "equal (almost) to the width of the road"? If you had the courage to ask your friends control questions like that, you'd realize how unreliable gut feelings can be. Give us something that can be objectively tested, or admit that you have nothing.



Stick with the evidence, Mark. It'll never let you down...

My comments in green above.

It's good that you admit that Chaney is closer to Altgens.

As I stated, it's a fact, and you cannot but agree with it.

I've never really doubted that he was. So what?

Your percentages are unsupportable, indeed, you refuse to cite any support. And like Patrick who cannot see a rifle, you assert that you can't see Chaney where he clearly is.

The distance from the tip of his shadow to the curb in the background is also "clearly" much shorter than the width on the road. Show us your percentages, and we can talk.

Once again, you've run from the point that there's no photographic or video evidence for Chaney's conversation with Curry. I keep bring it up, and you keep avoiding it.

Huh? Why would I expect there to be photographic evidence for something that happened after Dealey Plaza?

I keep pointing out supportable facts & evidence, and you keep offering speculation. All of your diagrams ABSOLUTELY RELY on an asserted distance of Altgens from the limo - yet you can't offer anything other than speculation & opinion for that.

What asserted distance? You're not making sense.

The true irony is the desperate attempt to fight evidence with speculation.

Huh? You have offered nothing but your highly subjective opinion that Chaney was right next to JFK. Show me something that can be objectively tested, or admit that you have nothing.

Further comments in green above.

The fact that you don't understand what a TREMENDOUS difference Altgen's distance from the limo makes - demolishes your entire argument.

Just for the fun of it, imagine Altgens as being immediately alongside the limo... then no matter WHERE Chaney was on the other side of the limo, no shadow would be visible. Now place Altgens 300 feet ahead of the limo. Chaney's shadow would be visible if he'd just made the turn on to Elm from Houston.

It's truly amusing that I have to explain this issue. The distance is CLEARLY absolutely essential to your argument, yet you don't understand that.

I have... all along.

Just as I've understood all along that you cannot accurately measure pixels in a lossy format.

You argue that Chaney spoke with Curry after Dealey Plaza... What speed would you say the limo was traveling (and thus, the lead vehicle - which was ahead of it) as it went out of view in the Z-film?