[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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?

Actually, you've already agreed... as has Patrick (although abstractly).

It's a good thing when believers admit the truth.

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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.

Right where he can be seen in the Altgens' print.

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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:

Don't you feel bad supporting my exact position against Patrick?

You see, it was PATRICK who was measuring helmets, and it was I who was demonstrating that the fairing provided a far better measurement.

So you need to speak with Patrick, and ask HIM why he thought to work with the helmets rather than with the fairings.

But he might not like you implying what you just tried to imply against me...

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

It would probably be meaningless to explain to you why jpegs are not something useful to derive precise pixel measurements. You'd only squirm some more...

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

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.

And you pretend that Chaney was closer, yet refuse to accept that he was where he's clearly seen in the Altgens' print. You somehow believe that he could have been BEHIND the limo bumper, yet still be closer to Altgens.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

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?

I'm guessing that your eyesight has much in common with Patrick, who looks at two weapons and sees just one.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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?

Simply asserting contrary to what the eyes can see, and the measurements confirm, isn't going to do the job, is it?

This is merely one single piece of the multitude of evidence showing that the extant Z-film isn't original. You're desperately trying to chop down one tree in a forest...

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

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.

Ah! I was waiting for the "perspective" argument... I knew it would come sooner or later.

But the truth is, both you and Patrick have admitted that Chaney is closer to Altgens... and this CORROBORATES his position as seen in the Altgens' photo.

And nothing you can say will refute that fact.

P.S. Just for the fun of it, I asked a friend nearby, who knows nothing about my interest in the JFK case, and with no prompting whatsoever, to view the photo, then draw a diagram showing the two limos and three motorcycles. I gave him no information at all... He actually put the limo a few feet forward of where I put it, which is next to JFK. He put it near Connally. You could try the same experiment - if you conduct it honestly, you know it would confirm what I'm saying... don't you? (Rhetorical, I don't expect you to answer...)

[Mark Ulrik]

LOOK AT THE FREAKING DIAGRAM! DOES IT LOOK LIKE CHANEY IS RIGHT ALONGSIDE JFK?


  altgens6.jpg (Size: 117.54 KB / Downloads: 522)

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:LOOK AT THE FREAKING DIAGRAM! DOES IT LOOK LIKE CHANEY IS RIGHT ALONGSIDE JFK?

Yes.

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:LOOK AT THE FREAKING DIAGRAM! DOES IT LOOK LIKE CHANEY IS RIGHT ALONGSIDE JFK?

Yes.

Then you have lost. In your version:

1) Chaney is in Zapruder's FOV. Problem: Chaney does not appear in the relevant Z frame(s). The Z film trumps your wishful thinking.

2) Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was. Problem: Chaney's windshield appears only 4-5% wider in the photo.

Additionally, had Chaney actually been that close to the camera, he would've been riding unrealistically close to the limo. Did any witnesses report a near-collision like this?


  altgens_6_trask.jpg (Size: 106.6 KB / Downloads: 420)

[Patrick C]

"Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was."

Where does this figure come from please....

[Mark Ulrik]

Patrick C Wrote:"Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was."

Where does this figure come from please....

Notice where Ben puts Chaney in his edited version of my diagram. I did a rough pixel count: 223 from centre of circle to Chaney, and 280 to Hargis. That's a 25% difference.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:LOOK AT THE FREAKING DIAGRAM! DOES IT LOOK LIKE CHANEY IS RIGHT ALONGSIDE JFK?

Yes.

Then you have lost.

How silly! You've continued to run from the many points I raise on this issue. I venture you've never dared to show the photo to someone completely unfamiliar with the JFK case, and asked them where Chaney is... as I've done a number of times now (most recently just yesterday)

And how can I have "lost" - when you ADMIT THAT CHANEY IS CLOSER TO ALTGENS THAN HARGIS???

Mark Ulrik Wrote:In your version:

I'll note for the record that you didn't even notice the fact that my image COMPLETELY destroys your image as evidence... I could equally have moved Chaney's motorcycle AHEAD of the limo... and then argued that both the extant Z-film and Altgens' photo were altered.

You see, an image isn't evidence. It's a graphic representation of how you interpret the evidence. You somehow missed that fact.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:1) Chaney is in Zapruder's FOV. Problem: Chaney does not appear in the relevant Z frame(s). The Z film trumps your wishful thinking.

A common logical fallacy. You cannot use the presumed authenticity of the extant Z-film as evidence that it's authentic. That's not the way it works. The Altgens' photo is just one of many bits of evidence showing that the extant Z-film isn't authentic.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:2) Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was. Problem: Chaney's windshield appears only 4-5% wider in the photo.

This is sheer speculation... based on nothing at all. We cannot go back in time and measure out the distances involved.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Additionally, had Chaney actually been that close to the camera, he would've been riding unrealistically close to the limo. Did any witnesses report a near-collision like this?

You see what happens when you use an image as evidence?

I've stated on numerous occasions that Chaney was less than a dozen feet away from JFK. I DARE YOU TO DISPUTE THAT STATEMENT!


This is quite amusing! Tell us Mark, why do you apparently think that this is a four lane street?

It's good that you've publicly admitted that "X" is the shadow from Chaney's motorcycle... that's an admission that I've NEVER been able to get in the last decade from any other believer.

But this image cannot prove your case, any more than your previous image did...

Give us a SCIENTIFIC reason why Chaney appears to be alongside the limo. Or better yet, borrow a limo & motorcycle and recreate the photo. (Interestingly, in over 50 years, no believer has dared to do this - even though it would prove absolutely devastating to those like me, who accept that this photo impugns the extant Z-film.)

P.S. Your last image contains the proof that it's not accurate... draw a parallel line (to A-B) starting from the right side of Chaney's fairing to the limo windshield... it would quite clearly not be completely visible - and would be blocked by the limo's windshield. It's always amusing when a poster's imagery proves them wrong...

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:"Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was."

Where does this figure come from please....

Notice where Ben puts Chaney in his edited version of my diagram. I did a rough pixel count: 223 from centre of circle to Chaney, and 280 to Hargis. That's a 25% difference.

You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:"Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was."

Where does this figure come from please....

Notice where Ben puts Chaney in his edited version of my diagram. I did a rough pixel count: 223 from centre of circle to Chaney, and 280 to Hargis. That's a 25% difference.

You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Kindly explain what you mean. Last time I checked, JPEG was a file format for raster images.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Notice where Ben puts Chaney in his edited version of my diagram. I did a rough pixel count: 223 from centre of circle to Chaney, and 280 to Hargis. That's a 25% difference.

You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Kindly explain what you mean. Last time I checked, JPEG was a file format for raster images.

Here is just one of thousands of online explanations...

Now, where's your admission that your pixel counts are nonsense?