[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Lee Abbott Wrote:MORE could haves and it's possible, Patrick? ... Under those conditions how can anyone have a sensible discussion with you?

Another clueless post Lee....

The bullet exited JFK and it did NOT strike the spine. It therefore did NOT travel in a straight line and or it passed between the two transverse processes.

There are two possibilities - it is that simple.

This is, of course, untrue.

There are more than simply two possibilities. You wish to posit transit as a fact, and work forward from there...

But transit HAS NEVER BEEN more than a speculation made at LEAST a day later... (and may, in fact, be something that was not proposed for several months... as the Jan 27 Executive session seems to show) It was not deduced during the autopsy and based on evidence from the body.

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Ordinary people know that the apparent size will SHRINK as the object is further away...

100% correct Ben and I agree 100%

Quote:you're now on record as stating the opposite.

Wrong again. I am NOT stating that at all and I could not have stated it more simply.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Patrick C Wrote:As it is - it is barely 10% bigger 1.1cm rather than 1cm in the 35 x 24 cm photo in the LIFE book I referenced.

There it is again...

You admit that objects further away should SHRINK in apparent size... yet you've STATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Then lie and claim you haven't.

Why do you make it so easy to label you a liar, Patrick?

You can keep running, and refusing to explain this anomaly... you know that Chaney should be smaller, according to your faith about where you think he was positioned... yet you admit that he's larger.

EXPLAIN THIS SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY... or run away again, Patrick.

That (a) Chaney is the motorcycle cop closest to Altgens' camera lens, and that (b) he is behind the presidential limo, are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's extremely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:100% correct Ben and I agree 100%

Wrong again. I am NOT stating that at all and I could not have stated it more simply.

You're lying again, Patrick.

Patrick C Wrote:As it is - it is barely 10% bigger 1.1cm rather than 1cm in the 35 x 24 cm photo in the LIFE book I referenced.

There it is again...

You admit that objects further away should SHRINK in apparent size... yet you've STATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Then lie and claim you haven't.

Why do you make it so easy to label you a liar, Patrick?

You can keep running, and refusing to explain this anomaly... you know that Chaney should be smaller, according to your faith about where you think he was positioned... yet you admit that he's larger.

EXPLAIN THIS SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY... or run away again, Patrick.

That (a) Chaney is the motorcycle cop closest to Altgens' camera lens, and that (b) he is behind the presidential limo, are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's extremely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Nah... I actually passed my basic trigonometry classes...

How well do you remember your triangle formulas? As this is a scalene triangle, by definition the two distances from Altgens to the motorcycle cops cannot be equal.

Nor can Chaney's distance be shorter - UNLESS HE'S FORWARD OF HARGIS, which, of course, is precisely where he is.

Now, feel free to do the math, and show me how it's mathematically possible for Chaney to be closer to Altgens when you presume that Chaney & Hargis are even with each other...

P.S. I'll predict right here and now that Patrick will not correct Mark Ulrik's assertion that Chaney can be closer, yet back behind the limo where Hargis is located...

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You're lying again, Patrick.

There it is again...

You admit that objects further away should SHRINK in apparent size... yet you've STATED THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

Then lie and claim you haven't.

Why do you make it so easy to label you a liar, Patrick?

You can keep running, and refusing to explain this anomaly... you know that Chaney should be smaller, according to your faith about where you think he was positioned... yet you admit that he's larger.

EXPLAIN THIS SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY... or run away again, Patrick.

That (a) Chaney is the motorcycle cop closest to Altgens' camera lens, and that (b) he is behind the presidential limo, are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's extremely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Nah... I actually passed my basic trigonometry classes...

How well do you remember your triangle formulas? As this is a scalene triangle, by definition the two distances from Altgens to the motorcycle cops cannot be equal.

Nor can Chaney's distance be shorter - UNLESS HE'S FORWARD OF HARGIS, which, of course, is precisely where he is.

Now, feel free to do the math, and show me how it's mathematically possible for Chaney to be closer to Altgens when you presume that Chaney & Hargis are even with each other,

Of course, he's forward of Hargis. No one ever said he wasn't.

There are many problems with your diagram, but thank you for at least trying. The cars, for example, are too big and in the wrong places. Here's a much better attempt by yours truly. (Notice the orange circle with Altgens in the centre.)


  altgens6.jpg (Size: 100.52 KB / Downloads: 424)

[Patrick C]

Fine post Mark,

Ben will no doubt struggle with that one ....unless he puts on his pro conspiracy sun glasses which block out more logic than UV rays.....

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:That (a) Chaney is the motorcycle cop closest to Altgens' camera lens, and that (b) he is behind the presidential limo, are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's extremely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Nah... I actually passed my basic trigonometry classes...

How well do you remember your triangle formulas? As this is a scalene triangle, by definition the two distances from Altgens to the motorcycle cops cannot be equal.

Nor can Chaney's distance be shorter - UNLESS HE'S FORWARD OF HARGIS, which, of course, is precisely where he is.

Now, feel free to do the math, and show me how it's mathematically possible for Chaney to be closer to Altgens when you presume that Chaney & Hargis are even with each other,

Of course, he's forward of Hargis. No one ever said he wasn't.

Then you've lost.

He's right where I've always stated... pretty much even with JFK, within a few feet. It's good that you admit that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chaney to be closer if he's even with Hargis - AS HAS ALWAYS STATED BY BELIEVERS...

Mark Ulrik Wrote:There are many problems with your diagram, but thank you for at least trying. The cars, for example, are too big and in the wrong places. Here's a much better attempt by yours truly. (Notice the orange circle with Altgens in the centre.)

altgens6.jpg

The diagram I gave proved my point - which explains why you're backing off of your claim.

[Mark Ulrik]

Patrick C Wrote:Fine post Mark,

Thanks Patrick.

Patrick C Wrote:Fine post Mark,
Ben will no doubt struggle with that one ....unless he puts on his pro conspiracy sun glasses which block out more logic than UV rays.....

Heh. I think we both know the answer.

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Nah... I actually passed my basic trigonometry classes...

How well do you remember your triangle formulas? As this is a scalene triangle, by definition the two distances from Altgens to the motorcycle cops cannot be equal.

Nor can Chaney's distance be shorter - UNLESS HE'S FORWARD OF HARGIS, which, of course, is precisely where he is.

Now, feel free to do the math, and show me how it's mathematically possible for Chaney to be closer to Altgens when you presume that Chaney & Hargis are even with each other,

Of course, he's forward of Hargis. No one ever said he wasn't.

Then you've lost.

He's right where I've always stated... pretty much even with JFK, within a few feet. It's good that you admit that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chaney to be closer if he's even with Hargis - AS HAS ALWAYS STATED BY BELIEVERS...

1) Feel free to attempt to prove that Chaney is where you think he is.
2) What people keep telling you is that Chaney is behind the limo.
3) I don't care what you think "believers" have always stated. You're having this discussion with me.

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:There are many problems with your diagram, but thank you for at least trying. The cars, for example, are too big and in the wrong places. Here's a much better attempt by yours truly. (Notice the orange circle with Altgens in the centre.)

altgens6.jpg

The diagram I gave proved my point - which explains why you're backing off of your claim.

I'm not backing off of anything. You're simply flogging your own straw man. My diagram shows that Chaney can, at the same time, be behind the limo and closer to Altgens than Hargis was.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Of course, he's forward of Hargis. No one ever said he wasn't.

Then you've lost.

He's right where I've always stated... pretty much even with JFK, within a few feet. It's good that you admit that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chaney to be closer if he's even with Hargis - AS HAS ALWAYS STATED BY BELIEVERS...

1) Feel free to attempt to prove that Chaney is where you think he is.
2) What people keep telling you is that Chaney is behind the limo.
3) I don't care what you think "believers" have always stated. You're having this discussion with me.

The measurements given by Patrick make that point... basic trig makes that point - you've been unable to deny either.

The films contradict the photo, and since the photo wasn't in the hands of the government, it's far more credible evidence.

You've lost this argument. Chaney isn't in the position believers keep arguing he is, he's far enough closer to Altgens to make a noticeable difference in size. That's not going to happen if Chaney is 1-2 feet forward of Hargis.

Basic trig has demolished your argument. But feel free to provide your mathematical explanation.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:There are many problems with your diagram, but thank you for at least trying. The cars, for example, are too big and in the wrong places. Here's a much better attempt by yours truly. (Notice the orange circle with Altgens in the centre.)

altgens6.jpg

The diagram I gave proved my point - which explains why you're backing off of your claim.

I'm not backing off of anything. You're simply flogging your own straw man. My diagram shows that Chaney can, at the same time, be behind the limo and closer to Altgens than Hargis was.

Yep... Chaney IS closer to Altgens... he's right alongside JFK. That he's closer is admitted by you, and proven by Patrick's admission that Chaney's helmet is larger (and his refusal to address the fairing width)

But this is CONTRADICTED by the extant Z-film... which doesn't show Chaney forward of Hargis - WHICH HE MUST HAVE BEEN (even admitted by you)

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Then you've lost.

He's right where I've always stated... pretty much even with JFK, within a few feet. It's good that you admit that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chaney to be closer if he's even with Hargis - AS HAS ALWAYS STATED BY BELIEVERS...

1) Feel free to attempt to prove that Chaney is where you think he is.
2) What people keep telling you is that Chaney is behind the limo.
3) I don't care what you think "believers" have always stated. You're having this discussion with me.

The measurements given by Patrick make that point... basic trig makes that point - you've been unable to deny either.

Well, why don't you show me the actual math that proves your so-called point? All you've done so far is wave your hands (and flog your own straw men). You don't have to prove to me that Chaney is closer than Hargis to Altgens. (I know he is.) The question is how much closer.

Are you suggesting that comparing helmet widths is a reliable way of estimating the relative distances to the camera? Doesn't it strike you that the motorcycle windshields might provide a somewhat more reliable measure? Well, I made this composite a while back:


  ap6311220989_wscmp.jpg (Size: 210.21 KB / Downloads: 192)

The widths of Hargis' and Chaney's windshields are about 183 and 191 pixels, respectively. That's a 4.4% difference. Remember that figure.

Ben Holmes Wrote:The films contradict the photo, and since the photo wasn't in the hands of the government, it's far more credible evidence.

But you haven't demonstrated any contradiction between the photo and the Z film. All you've done so far is wave your hands.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You've lost this argument. Chaney isn't in the position believers keep arguing he is, he's far enough closer to Altgens to make a noticeable difference in size. That's not going to happen if Chaney is 1-2 feet forward of Hargis.

Basic trig has demolished your argument. But feel free to provide your mathematical explanation.

Where did you get 1-2 feet from? In my diagram, he's about 6 feet closer to Altgens. When I count pixels, Hargis is about 7.7% farther away. The 4.4% difference in windshield widths is well within that margin. So, what was that you were saying about Chaney being level with JFK?

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The diagram I gave proved my point - which explains why you're backing off of your claim.

I'm not backing off of anything. You're simply flogging your own straw man. My diagram shows that Chaney can, at the same time, be behind the limo and closer to Altgens than Hargis was.

Yep... Chaney IS closer to Altgens... he's right alongside JFK. That he's closer is admitted by you, and proven by Patrick's admission that Chaney's helmet is larger (and his refusal to address the fairing width)

But Chaney is not right right alongside JFK. Look at my diagram again. You do understand that 4.4% is less than 7.7%, right?

Ben Holmes Wrote:But this is CONTRADICTED by the extant Z-film... which doesn't show Chaney forward of Hargis - WHICH HE MUST HAVE BEEN (even admitted by you)

You have no concept of perspective. Look at my diagram again.