[Mark Ulrik]

(08-07-2016, 06:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 01:45 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

Ben Holmes]

I see my statement about your ignorance of the distance factor is still unrefuted.

How am I supposed to refute something that exists only in your imagination?

You ADMITTED that you didnt understand how Altgens' distance from the limo would affect your graphics and analysis.

Quote me, or admit you're just making things up.

Of course:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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.

[color=#FFFFFF Wrote:xxx[/color]
Your dishonesty is absolutely breathtaking. That's not me "admitting" anything. It's me asking what the heck you mean by asserted distance. Asserted by whom? What you see in the diagram is an estimated location based on where the sight lines meet.

Now, state for the record that you DO understand that Chaney's shadow, had he been right alongside JFK - WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL IF ALTGENS WERE ALONGSIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMO. And likewise, if Altgens had been 100 feet in front of the limo, Chaney's shadow would be plainly visible if he was just making the turn on to Elm street.

Sure. If you'll state for the record that you understand that Altgens was in Dallas on the 11/22/63.

Altgens' distance from the limo is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to your imagined "sightlines" - and the fact that you refuse to admit this simple fact simply shows either your ignorance of basic geometry, or an inherent dishonesty... take your pick.

You forgot the obvious third option.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:And unless you can document the distance that Altgens was from the limo - all your arguments are meaningless.

The sightlines don't lie, Ben. I placed him in almost exactly the same spot as Cutler did, and close to where Roberdeau and others have put him. Roberdeau is a member here, by the way, so why don't you ask him what he thinks of your Chaney theory? As I've pointed out many times before, my argument doesn't depend on whether you place Chaney 20% or 25% closer (than Hargis) to Altgens.

The "sightlines" are absolutely and fundamentally based on the distance that Altgens was from the limo. That's a fact, whether or not you're willing to admit it.

I explained the relationship above.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I find it amusing that you're too much the coward to state publicly what the speed of the limo was as it went under the overpass.

And you're too much of a coward to acknowledge the possibility that the cars in front of Chaney made a brief stop west of the overpass.

How can I be a "coward" to "acknowledge" an impossibility? You admit that the limo could have been traveling at 40 mph as it went under the overpass - the leading vehicle was simply not that far ahead that it could have stopped... and still stayed ahead of the Presidential limo...

AT NO TIME did the Presidential limo entirely pass the lead vehicle...

Why can't you document where this alleged conversation took place???

No photographers were present.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:So the entire topic of Chaney's conversation with Curry is one you don't want to touch - I can understand that.

It has nothing to do with the Altgens photo or the Z film. But I can understand why you desperately want to change the subject.

You really think it has nothing to do with the extant Z film???

You've got something exactly right for once.

Why are you afraid of James Chaney?

Why don't you post your own diagram? What are you scared of?

My comments in green above.