Forums

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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...

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.

Naw... let's see your answer to the above question first.

If I told you what you could do with your straw men and red herrings, I'd be censored, so I won't. The question is poorly phrased, btw, as "lossy" relates to loss of information, not loss of pixels per se. And it's still breathtakingly dishonest of you to pretend that my arguments depend on pixel perfection. My images are more than accurate enough to bring my points across. What would you say if I demanded atomic clock precision from you? Give me Chaney's exact coordinates, or you lose.

If you measure the width of the motorcyle wind shields...there is very little in it.

Nigh on "proof" that Chaney would not be in the Z film... he is almost level with Bobby H.....a little forward as you say......

Logic and common sense once again prevails over wishful thinking.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:If I told you what you could do with your straw men and red herrings, I'd be censored, so I won't. The question is poorly phrased, btw, as "lossy" relates to loss of information, not loss of pixels per se. And it's still breathtakingly dishonest of you to pretend that my arguments depend on pixel perfection. My images are more than accurate enough to bring my points across. What would you say if I demanded atomic clock precision from you? Give me Chaney's exact coordinates, or you lose.

Once again, you run from the question.

It would seem that you're willing to be honest about the lossy format of JPEG compression, yet unwilling to admit the logical fact that is drawn from that...

Patrick C Wrote:If you measure the width of the motorcyle wind shields...there is very little in it.

Nigh on "proof" that Chaney would not be in the Z film... he is almost level with Bobby H.....a little forward as you say......

It's quite puzzling what you're claiming is almost "proof" that the Z-film would not show Chaney.

Indeed, there are two separate lines of evidence that show that the Z-film has been altered THAT ARE BASED ONLY ON JAMES CHANEY.

The first is the fact that Altgens shows him alongside the limo - and even you and Mark admit that he's larger in size than the other motorcycle cops, therefore MUST be closer to Altgens.

Yet despite that SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, you still wish to claim that he wasn't where he so clearly is.

The second is the evidential case that James Chaney rode forward to speak with Curry... which is ALSO not seen in the films.

Ironically, believers have asserted that James Chaney did ride forward... yet cannot point to any photographic or video evidence.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Logic and common sense once again prevails over wishful thinking.

This will be the only warning I give.

This forum will have posts that are evidence based...

Throwaway lines such as the above that mention no evidence, and cannot be tied to any particular statements will... in the future... simply be deleted.

This forum will not be turned into the nonsense that was found on the Amazon forums.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Logic and common sense once again prevails over wishful thinking.

you are wandering, son! Focus.... Case evidence!

Ben Holmes Wrote:The first is the fact that Altgens shows him alongside the limo - and even you and Mark admit that he's larger in size than the other motorcycle cops, therefore MUST be closer to Altgens.

Yes, I agree Chaney is it would seem further forward but not by much - measure the wind shields.......they are almost the same.....

According to Ben, you can't make meaningful measurements on JPEGs, but here's one anyway...