[Mark Ulrik]

(08-01-2016, 02:51 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 01:20 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(07-29-2016, 01:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm happy with the truth.

And you still aren't telling it, are you?

How can you measure what no longer exists?

Why do you claim you can?

The distances do not disappear. Open your eyes.

If you don't like my figures, then please feel free to post your own. Do some work for a change.

It's the same with analogue photographs. Does degradation make it completely meaningless to measure distances in n-generation copies? Should only original negatives (or trannies) be used for that purpose?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

(07-29-2016, 02:13 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:The distances do not disappear. Open your eyes.

If you don't like my figures, then please feel free to post your own. Do some work for a change.

It's the same with analogue photographs. Does degradation make it completely meaningless to measure distances in n-generation copies? Should only original negatives (or trannies) be used for that purpose?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

I think my irony meter just burst.

(07-29-2016, 05:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

I think my irony meter just burst.

Here's an example (originally a .tiff file) - but posted here as a jpg:

Now here's a closeup of the above jpg (on the left) with the original .tiff format on the right:

One doesn't have to be a graphics design artist to note the difference... you pretend that you can accurately measure pixels that no longer exist on the ear to the left...

But that's simply dishonesty on your part.

I noticed that you didn't say one word about the lack of photos & video for James Chaney's asserted conversation with Chief Curry...

Why is that, Mark?

I thought you weren't afraid of the topic of James Chaney?

Wow, that's some nasty compression artifacts.

Tut tut tut.... that's not even compressed nearly as much as it could have been... as I recall, I only used 50% compression.

That's why I included the original that the closeup came from - so everyone can see what JPEG compression does... and that the original still looks quite good. (until you do a closeup.)

You've just been schooled, Mark... yet again.

You pretend pixels can be accurately measured on JPEGS - I've just proven THAT YOU CANNOT DO IT.

(08-01-2016, 01:20 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Tell you what, Ben, this is the maximum quality version of my diagram. Feel free to put Chaney wherever you want him to be and make your own measurements.



As for the motorcycle windshields, the AP and Corbis HQs are easy enough to find on the interwebs. Feel free to make your own measurements on them as well.

Report back to us when you're done. You won't do that, of course, because the results will scare the living daylights out of you.

Change of topic, I see.

First let's deal with JPEG compression... until you can produce something showing that you could accurately measure pixels that no longer exist - you've been proven wrong.

Complaining that there are "compression artifacts" doesn't change the fact THAT IT ALWAYS HAPPENS WITH JPEG COMPRESSION.

Come on. You've realized, to your horror no doubt, that there's no objective support for your Chaney theory, so you're desperately trying to turn this into a discussion about pixels. How pathetic.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-02-2016, 09:32 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Come on. You've realized, to your horror no doubt, that there's no objective support for your Chaney theory, so you're desperately trying to turn this into a discussion about pixels. How pathetic.

How silly... YOU and Patrick both admit that Chaney was closer to Altgens than the other cops. That's evidence for the fact that Chaney is right where you see him in the photo.

You've offered nothing more than your speculation that he wasn't.

Proven wrong on pixel issue, you're relegated to false complaints of a lack of "objective support" - even though YOU agree that the evidence shows him closer.

And when I invited you to show where Chaney spoke with Curry... dead silence.

These two issues are only a couple of bits of evidence for alteration in the extant Z-film.

And you've been unable to refute it.

And now that I've produced a photo DEMONSTRATING what I've been saying all along about the measurement of pixels in JPEGS - you've suddenly turned silent about the possibility of accurate measurement...

Embarrassing, isn't it?

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-02-2016, 02:11 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 09:32 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Come on. You've realized, to your horror no doubt, that there's no objective support for your Chaney theory, so you're desperately trying to turn this into a discussion about pixels. How pathetic.

How silly... YOU and Patrick both admit that Chaney was closer to Altgens than the other cops. That's evidence for the fact that Chaney is right where you see him in the photo.

Not even close! I can't speak for Patrick, but I put him up to about 7-8% (about 4-5% based on difference in windshield sizes) closer, and you put him about 25% closer.

You've offered nothing more than your speculation that he wasn't.

The irony is thick on this one. You have so far offered nothing but "well, that's what it looks like to me." How about offering something that can be tested for a change?

Proven wrong on pixel issue, you're relegated to false complaints of a lack of "objective support" - even though YOU agree that the evidence shows him closer.

And when I invited you to show where Chaney spoke with Curry... dead silence.

Outside Dealey Plaza. Not on film. Irrelevant to this discussion. Another weak attempt to change the subject.

These two issues are only a couple of bits of evidence for alteration in the extant Z-film.

Let's not forget your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.

And you've been unable to refute it.

What is there to refute? Your hand waving?

And now that I've produced a photo DEMONSTRATING what I've been saying all along about the measurement of pixels in JPEGS - you've suddenly turned silent about the possibility of accurate measurement...

Embarrassing, isn't it?

[Ad Hominem Deleted...]

My comment in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-02-2016, 03:05 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 02:11 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 09:32 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Come on. You've realized, to your horror no doubt, that there's no objective support for your Chaney theory, so you're desperately trying to turn this into a discussion about pixels. How pathetic.

How silly... YOU and Patrick both admit that Chaney was closer to Altgens than the other cops. That's evidence for the fact that Chaney is right where you see him in the photo.

Not even close! 

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.

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

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...

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

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-02-2016, 03:19 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 03:05 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 02:11 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 09:32 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Come on. You've realized, to your horror no doubt, that there's no objective support for your Chaney theory, so you're desperately trying to turn this into a discussion about pixels. How pathetic.

How silly... YOU and Patrick both admit that Chaney was closer to Altgens than the other cops. That's evidence for the fact that Chaney is right where you see him in the photo.

Not even close! 

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.

[Ben Holmes]

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

(08-02-2016, 03:19 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 03:05 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 02:11 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 09:32 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Come on. You've realized, to your horror no doubt, that there's no objective support for your Chaney theory, so you're desperately trying to turn this into a discussion about pixels. How pathetic.

How silly... YOU and Patrick both admit that Chaney was closer to Altgens than the other cops. That's evidence for the fact that Chaney is right where you see him in the photo.

Not even close! 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Mark Ulrik]

(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:  

(08-02-2016, 03:05 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 02:11 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  How silly... YOU and Patrick both admit that Chaney was closer to Altgens than the other cops. That's evidence for the fact that Chaney is right where you see him in the photo.

Not even close! 

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.

[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?

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-04-2016, 02:48 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

You don't understand anything. I estimated Altgens' location by observing the intersecting lines of sight. It was neither randomly selected nor "asserted" by anyone.

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

Accurately enough to make my point, but if you don't like my figures, please feel free to post your own. Make yourself useful for a change.

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?

Quite fast, but it's not my theory that Chaney was ever alongside the limo while in DP.

My comments in easy-on-the-eyes green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-04-2016, 05:12 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  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.

You don't understand anything. I estimated Altgens' location by observing the intersecting lines of sight. It was neither randomly selected nor "asserted" by anyone.

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

Accurately enough to make my point, but if you don't like my figures, please feel free to post your own. Make yourself useful for a change.

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?

Quite fast, but it's not my theory that  Chaney was ever alongside the limo while in DP.

My comments in easy-on-the-eyes green above.

Yep... you "estimated" Altgen's position, and fail to understand how critical that measurement actually is to your argument.

And you've ADMITTED that you don't understand.

It doesn't surprise me that you were unwilling to state the speed of the limo. Would you agree that it's traveling in excess of 40 mph by the time it goes under the overpass?