[Ben Holmes]

According to Thompson - WHO IS NO FRIEND OF ANY 'ALTERATION' - the original of the film left Dallas on the MORNING of the 23rd.

So Patrick is quite convinced that no alteration could have been performed during the 19 hours and 30 minutes that Zapruder had the film.

Tell you what, Patrick - I'LL CONCEDE THAT NO ALTERATION HAPPENED IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS.

Now, lets see if you can concede that it was possible after 8am on Saturday, the 23rd.

Unless, of course - you're too busy to defend your position...

[Mark Ulrik]

Ray Mitcham Wrote:The yellow line through the cops windscreens appears to show that Cheney on the left is well ahead of the the two cops the right.

You're making the mistake of assuming that Altgens held his camera completely level. Let's try rotating the image until the structures in the background become truly vertical:


  altgens-bike-cops-corrected.jpg (Size: 151.4 KB / Downloads: 494)

[Ray Mitcham]

perspective corrected.

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Ah!!! It's so good you finally admit that JPG's are lossy... now all you have to do is admit that it's IMPOSSIBLE to be pixel accurate in a format that doesn't even have all the data.

As, of course, I've been saying all along - and you've been avoiding.

Silly. I haven't "avoided" anything. I responded to your claim that it's impossible to count pixels in a JPEG image, which is blatantly false (although you'll never admit it).

How can I "admit" what is not true? You can certainly count pixels... but the hidden presumption is that they actually reflect the view as seen on 11/22/63. IT DOES NOT - AS YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED.

So you beg me to "admit" that what you're measuring had an actual physical existence on 11/22 - but even YOU know that this isn't true - YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT JPEGS ARE A LOSSY FORMAT.

You didn't know this... and you clearly got schooled on the topic.

That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.

Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now you're still desperately trying to reclaim some small shred of honor - but anyone who measures pixels and thinks that they illustrate the accuracy implied by the term "pixels" is ignorant of the facts of JPEG compression techniques.

This is why I only refer to larger or smaller... and indicate the difference by comparing it to a drawn in line... I'm well aware of what you're now learning.

Stop right here! Pixels are simply a convenient measurement unit when we're dealing with raster images. No particular degree of accuracy is assumed or implied. If I measured the distances on a printout, using a ruler, the difference would still be 25%. (Or close; I rounded it down from 25.56 to give you the benefit of the doubt.)

Here is, in case you wondered, what a reading of 280 pixels looks like in Paint.NET:


  altgens_jpeg95.jpg (Size: 153.01 KB / Downloads: 395)

Notice that I'm measuring from centre of circle to centre of circle (not from fuzzy edge to fuzzy edge) to avoid being accused of lack of accuracy.

I find it amusing, btw, to be "schooled" on accuracy by someone who posted this diagram:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The math, of course, is in my favor. Chaney is closer, indeed; he's right where he said he was, and where everyone can SEE him in the photo... people with absolutely no stake in the issue.

The math indicates that he's very slightly closer, not in the order of 25% closer. Did he say that he was right alongside JFK? That he was so close that he almost collided with the limo? Did any of the witnesses to the shooting say anything like that?"

Until you can produce the distance between Altgens & Hargis... and the distance from Hargis to Chaney - you simply don't have the data needed to make percentage claims.

So be smart, and drop the silly "25%" claim.

It's actually your claim, since you're the one who placed him there. What's silly is your insistence on atomic clock accuracy. Would it make you happier if we said (for example) 25% +/- 2%? Or 25% +/- x% (your choice of x)?

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:You have no objective basis for placing him alongside JFK. None. In your imagination, you see him looking at JFK, but in reality, he's looking across the road, in the direction of his fellow officers. After polling your friends, have you ever asked them to consider that possibility?

"no objective basis"???

You've admitted (as has Patrick) that Chaney is shown larger, and thus is MATHEMATICALLY closer to Altgens. You quite desperately wish to save the authenticity of the extant Z-film, since only the government had the power to alter it. And that fact scares you to death.

And why would I try to influence what people see in the photo? That would be quite dishonest, wouldn't it? It would also be a blatant lie on your part, since Chaney made it crystal clear that he was looking at JFK when he turned to his right, not his fellow motorcycle cops.

So why would I tell a lie to try to get completely un-informed people to come to an opinion that isn't based on the evidence?

Could it be that you actually performed this experiment - and discovered to your horror that your friends put Chaney right next to the limo?

Speak up, Mark ... did you try this?

Chaney is closer (than Hargis) to Altgens, but how much closer? 5% still places him behind the limo.

There's nothing about the Z film that scares me. I sometimes even chuckle when I think of your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.

Chaney told reporters that he "looked back over to [his] left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder" after the first shot. You really have no right to conclude that he was still looking at JFK when Altgens snapped the shutter. When you study the image, does JFK seem to be looking "back over his left shoulder?"

Don't take it personally, but I don't share your faith in subjective interpretations (however popular).

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...Popularity

I said after you had polled them. What possible harm could that do? Would your carefully constructed conspiracy universe implode if they responded, "Yeah, he could also be looking across the road, in the direction of his fellow officers."

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:And 'can you' do pixel counts? Of course you can.
Will they be reproduceable?

Certainly... AS LONG AS YOU USE PRECISELY THE SAME EXACT PHOTO.

Will they match the count given by other presumably identical photos?

Not at all.

My guess is that you've never even paid any attention to the compression settings of a JPG. Since I run a number of websites, and deal with graphics quite often - I'm quite familiar with the topic.

So on this, you've been schooled.

Keep telling yourself that. And keep pretending that using better quality images would drastically change the estimates I've posted. I challenge you to post your own HQ images and math, but we both know you'll never do that. According to the CT playbook, you should never be specific yourself, but always wait for your opponent to post specifics, and then attack, attack, attack.

Strawmen are fun, aren't they?

I've stated that pixel accurate measurements are not possible on JPEG's... you've admitted that it's a lossy compression format, but you apparently still don't understand that.

So answer the question: Will you get the same pixel count on different versions of the SAME PHOTO when measuring the same area?

I predict that you won't answer... because if you answer no, you'll be agreeing with what I've been saying all along... and if you say yes, you'd be blatantly ... and more importantly, PROVABLY lying.

So what's your answer, Mark?

How can you, with a straight face, demand hyper precision from me, while you post stuff like this?

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I know it frightens you that you cannot ask others what they see in the Altgens photo ... because they'll simply validate what I've already told you... and what Chaney said...

And since you cannot give a credible explanation that will absolve the extant Z-film - we're back to the beginning question I first raised: why doesn't the extant Z-film show Chaney where Altgens puts him?

Why have you refused to have anyone look at the photo and give you their un-guided opinion?

I didn't realize this was a popularity contest. I prefer to do my own analysis, thank you. Perhaps you should try the same. It can be quite liberating.

I'm merely demonstrating that you aren't honest enough to admit that the Altgens' photo shows Chaney where I say he is. Maybe you could argue that it's some sort of photographic illusion, but you cannot deny that Chaney appears to be next to the limo, not behind it.

But clearly, you either performed the experiment and were shocked by the results, so you're keeping quiet, or you already know what you'd find, so prefer not to prove it.

Now, answer the question Mark: Does Chaney APPEAR in the Altgens' print to be alongside the limo?

Let's cut to the chase. Photographs can be deceptive. Depth (and other) information tends to get lost when you project a 3D scene onto a 2D plane:



Apart from the windshield, Chaney's motorcycle is obscured by the limo, so in a sense it's like he's floating in air, and you can imagine him to be almost anywhere you want (along the same line of sight from Altgens, of course). One of the few things we can be absolutely certain of, just by looking at the photo, is that he isn't in front of the limo.

It's easy to imagine him being right alongside JFK:

1) Size: You might think that he appears somewhat large for someone who is supposed to be behind the limo. His windshield does appear (by my estimate 4-5%) wider that that of Hargis. However, as my diagram shows, it is quite possible for him to be (what amounts to) a few feet closer to the camera and still be behind the limo. Clint Hill on the running board of the follow-up car also appears larger than you might expect, and he's definitely behind the limo. I hope you agree with me on that one.


  dots_jpeg80.jpg (Size: 213.18 KB / Downloads: 389)

2) Head turn: It would be a natural reaction under the circumstances to be looking at the President, and it's easy to imagine that he was, but it would also be natural to look across the road to gauge the reactions of his fellow officers.

3) Shadow on road: Chaney's shadow appears next to the limo's right front fender, so that must mean he's pretty far advanced, right? No. It's easy to underestimate the distances involved. For example, the distance from the tip of the shadow to the curb in the background roughly equals the width of the road. If you asked your friends to estimate the distance, you might get interesting results.


  altgens_6_trask.jpg (Size: 106.6 KB / Downloads: 396)

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Why haven't you explained YOUR OWN IMAGE demonstrating that the fairing would be half hidden behind the limo's windshield?

Thank you for reminding me that, next time, I should represent the motorcycles in a more realistic way.

There is some overlapping, though.

No Mark, there's no "overlap"... there's no part of Chaney's fairing that is BEHIND the limo's windshield. Now, why haven't you explained that your own image demonstrated that Chaney's fairing would be half hidden?

Or redo your image so that it works?

You don't seem to grasp the concept of an overhead view. It can be used to demonstrate horizontal overlap, not vertical.

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Why did it take you so long to admit that JPG's are a lossy compression format?

I was responding to your claim that JPEG wasn't a raster image format.

YOU'RE A LIAR, MARK ULRIK - I've never made any such statement, and you will never be able to quote any such statement.

Either quote me saying that, OR RETRACT YOUR BLATANT LIE!!

Saying that you can't count pixels in a JPEG is the same as saying that JPEG isn't a raster image format. I gave you a chance to explain what you meant, but you responded with an arrogant "Google it!"

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Why are you pretending that I've been "busted" when every statement I've made has been cited for, and you've been unable to document almost nothing of your claims?

I'm not pretending. You have no argument other than "well, that's what it looks like to me."

Why are you pretending that I've been "busted" when every statement I've made has been cited for, and you've been unable to document almost nothing of your claims? Why are you now lying about the arguments I've been making?

Yeah, busted is a pretty strong word, but I think it applies here. You haven't been able to support your "Chaney alongside JFK" theory in any substantial way. Your hand waving might convince David Healy, but doesn't quite cut it with me.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Silly. I haven't "avoided" anything. I responded to your claim that it's impossible to count pixels in a JPEG image, which is blatantly false (although you'll never admit it).

How can I "admit" what is not true? You can certainly count pixels... but the hidden presumption is that they actually reflect the view as seen on 11/22/63. IT DOES NOT - AS YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED.

So you beg me to "admit" that what you're measuring had an actual physical existence on 11/22 - but even YOU know that this isn't true - YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT JPEGS ARE A LOSSY FORMAT.

You didn't know this... and you clearly got schooled on the topic.

That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.

Yes... they do.

You've just lied about what I stated.

YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.

You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.

I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.

This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.

You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?

You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!

No such statement was ever made by me.

This shows that you realize you've lost...

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:How can I "admit" what is not true? You can certainly count pixels... but the hidden presumption is that they actually reflect the view as seen on 11/22/63. IT DOES NOT - AS YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED.

So you beg me to "admit" that what you're measuring had an actual physical existence on 11/22 - but even YOU know that this isn't true - YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT JPEGS ARE A LOSSY FORMAT.

You didn't know this... and you clearly got schooled on the topic.

That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.

Yes... they do.

You've just lied about what I stated.

YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.

You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.

I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.

This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.

How about this?

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.

Ha-ha. Now, that's a lie!

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?

You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!

No such statement was ever made by me.

This shows that you realize you've lost...

No, it shows your inability to discuss issues. You'll do anything to derail a discussion when you realize that you have lost.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.

Yes... they do.

You've just lied about what I stated.

YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.

You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.

I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.

This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.

How about this?

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Interestingly, you refuse to point out that I'm referring to the ACCURACY of pixel counts... here's my very first quote on the topic:

Quote: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...

And it would be senseless of me to quote the many times I've stated that you can COUNT the pixels, that they simply don't mean anything.

In a lossy compression format such as JPEG - the original total of pixels simply aren't there anymore

(And yes, I'm well aware that you could mistake the meaning of that statement too if you wanted...)

You're intentionally lying about what I've said, and you know that you are.

That makes you a very dishonest person, doesn't it?

But arguing a strawman is better than addressing the real questions that WCR Supporters run from... as listed in the original post in this thread.

Patrick does the same thing...

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.

Ha-ha. Now, that's a lie!

And yet, it was quite clear that it took you more than a post to catch up... you clearly didn't bother reading my first cite on the topic.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?

You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!

No such statement was ever made by me.

This shows that you realize you've lost...

No, it shows your inability to discuss issues. You'll do anything to derail a discussion when you realize that you have lost.

Still no quotes from me saying what you claim...

Do you really think that such dishonesty will convince anyone, Mark? Why can't you point out anyplace where I "complained" about people compressing their images?

The vast majority of the images I upload are very tightly compressed. But then, I'm not dumb enough to try to count pixels on compressed lossy photos, and make an argument based on it.

You've been schooled.

Now, care to pick out another question to answer? Or are you, like Patrick; too "busy" to give credible explanations for the evidence?

Or perhaps you could help Patrick out, and tell us what would differentiate the Grassy Knoll from the Railroad yard as a location for a shot heard from the entrance to the TSBD.

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Yes... they do.

You've just lied about what I stated.

YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.

You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.

I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.

This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.

How about this?

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Interestingly, you refuse to point out that I'm referring to the ACCURACY of pixel counts... here's my very first quote on the topic:

Quote: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...

And it would be senseless of me to quote the many times I've stated that you can COUNT the pixels, that they simply don't mean anything.

In a lossy compression format such as JPEG - the original total of pixels simply aren't there anymore

(And yes, I'm well aware that you could mistake the meaning of that statement too if you wanted...)

You're intentionally lying about what I've said, and you know that you are.

That makes you a very dishonest person, doesn't it?

But arguing a strawman is better than addressing the real questions that WCR Supporters run from... as listed in the original post in this thread.

Patrick does the same thing...

It's typically dishonest of you to pretend that it's completely meaningless to measure distances in JPEGs. Just to set you straight, I did the same measurements in a PNG and a 20% JPEG. Notice that, despite fuzzier edges and colors, the distances between the centres of the objects remain the same.



Let me remind you that pixels, in this context, is simply a convenient measurement unit. I could also have chosen millimetres. Or measured the distances on a printout with an old-fashioned ruler.



The figure 25% seems to scare you for some reason, since you're obviously willing to say anything to make it go away, but this is not the right way to do it. I didn't claim the figure was more than a rough estimate, and my argument doesn't depend on whether the true value is 23%, 25% or 27%. I didn't say it was 25.0000%.

This will be my last word in the JPEG "debate".

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.

Ha-ha. Now, that's a lie!

And yet, it was quite clear that it took you more than a post to catch up... you clearly didn't bother reading my first cite on the topic.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!

No such statement was ever made by me.

This shows that you realize you've lost...

No, it shows your inability to discuss issues. You'll do anything to derail a discussion when you realize that you have lost.

Still no quotes from me saying what you claim...

Do you really think that such dishonesty will convince anyone, Mark? Why can't you point out anyplace where I "complained" about people compressing their images?

The vast majority of the images I upload are very tightly compressed. But then, I'm not dumb enough to try to count pixels on compressed lossy photos, and make an argument based on it.

You've been schooled.

No, we've had a totally irrelevant discussion about pixels and JPEGs. Wake me up when you're ready to talk about Chaney.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, care to pick out another question to answer? Or are you, like Patrick; too "busy" to give credible explanations for the evidence?

Or perhaps you could help Patrick out, and tell us what would differentiate the Grassy Knoll from the Railroad yard as a location for a shot heard from the entrance to the TSBD.

It's been a while since I looked at McAdams' tabulation. Does it differentiate between GK and RY witnesses?

[Ben Holmes]

Mark...

This is really a very simple issue.

Do photos LOSE pixels in JPEG compression?

If you're honest and state that the answer is yes, then you know that you cannot measure what is no longer there.

If you're dishonest, and claim that the answer is no, then there's nothing more that needs to be said.

It's interesting that you refuse to help Patrick out...

[Mark Ulrik]

Is it just me, or does it also seem to you that Ben doesn't want to talk about Chaney anymore. Well, who can blame him? Let's take a final look at his two pet arguments before we lower them into the ground.

1) Chaney is closer than Hargis to Altgens.

Yes, Ben, we actually agree with you on that one, but that still doesn't put him alongside JFK:


(Click to enlarge)

2) Ben (and everyone he asks) think Chaney is right up there with JFK in the Altgens photo.

Well, just by eyeballing the photo, it's easy to underestimate the distances involved. Who would think, for example, that the distance from the tip of Chaney's shadow (marked X below) to the curb in the background (B) roughly equals the width of the road?