[Mark Ulrik]

(08-05-2016, 03:12 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

I understand more about the Altgens photo than you ever will. (I know it sounds like bragging, but it's frankly a rather modest accomplishment.)

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?

Perhaps it was. But did the cars in front of Chaney maintain that speed all the way to Parkland, or is it possible that they make a brief stop west of the triple underpass, allowing Chaney to catch up?

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-05-2016, 08:20 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  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.

I understand more about the Altgens photo than you ever will. (I know it sounds like bragging, but it's frankly a rather modest accomplishment.)

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?

Perhaps it was. But did the cars in front of Chaney maintain that speed all the way to Parkland, or is it possible that they make a brief stop west of the triple underpass, allowing Chaney to catch up?

My comments in green above.

I see my statement about your ignorance of the distance factor is still unrefuted.

You ADMITTED that you didn't understand how Altgens' distance from the limo would affect your graphics and analysis.

I do.

And unless you can document the distance that Altgens was from the limo - all your arguments are meaningless.

Since Chaney is STILL closer to Altgens than the other cops, this supports the fact that Chaney is right where we see him.

I find it amusing that you're too much the coward to state publicly what the speed of the limo was as it went under the overpass.

So the entire topic of Chaney's conversation with Curry is one you don't want to touch - I can understand that.

[Ben Holmes]

It's worth noting the accuracy of the original post... which was:

Quote:The real question is why believers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?

So why do *YOU* care?

And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are believers famous for not supporting their own words?

Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:

Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?

Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most believers today?

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?

Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?

What was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray? (John McAdams absolutely HATES this question...)

What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?

How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?

Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly not bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?

Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them...

Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?

Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was NO valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?

Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?

Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?

Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??

Why have so many new "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?

Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's never seen in the extant Z-film?

Why do dozen's of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

Why do dozens of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?

Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? (And why can't even a single believer ADMIT that the Autopsy Report contradicts the BOH photo?)

When and where did Chaney speak with Curry? Why don't any photos or videos show this?

And last... why will you snip these, and refuse to respond? I can give REASONABLE and CREDIBLE explanations for the evidence, believers cannot. It's that simple.

Watch as believers absolutely REFUSE to respond to these questions... (no need to answer 'em all - that's something believers can't do... so pick your favorite, and let the apologetics begin...)

Notice how many of these questions are still unanswered... (actually... all of them!)

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-05-2016, 01:30 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-05-2016, 08:20 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  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.

I understand more about the Altgens photo than you ever will. (I know it sounds like bragging, but it's frankly a rather modest accomplishment.)

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?

Perhaps it was. But did the cars in front of Chaney maintain that speed all the way to Parkland, or is it possible that they make a brief stop west of the triple underpass, allowing Chaney to catch up?

My comments in green above.

I see my statement about your ignorance of the distance factor is still unrefuted.

How am I supposed to refute something that exists only in your imagination?

You ADMITTED that you didn't understand how Altgens' distance from the limo would affect your graphics and analysis.

Quote me, or admit you're just making things up.

I do.

And unless you can document the distance that Altgens was from the limo - all your arguments are meaningless.

The sightlines don't lie, Ben. I placed him in almost exactly the same spot as Cutler did, and close to where Roberdeau and others have put him. Roberdeau is a member here, by the way, so why don't you ask him what he thinks of your Chaney theory? As I've pointed out many times before, my argument doesn't depend on whether you place Chaney 20% or 25% closer (than Hargis) to Altgens.

Since Chaney is STILL closer to Altgens than the other cops, this supports the fact that Chaney is right where we see him.

Which is behind the limo.

I find it amusing that you're too much the coward to state publicly what the speed of the limo was as it went under the overpass.

And you're too much of a coward to acknowledge the possibility that the cars in front of Chaney made a brief stop west of the overpass.

So the entire topic of Chaney's conversation with Curry is one you don't want to touch - I can understand that.

It has nothing to do with the Altgens photo or the Z film. But I can understand why you desperately want to change the subject.

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 01:45 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

'Ben Holmes Wrote:I see my statement about your ignorance of the distance factor is still unrefuted.

How am I supposed to refute something that exists only in your imagination?

You ADMITTED that you didn't understand how Altgens' distance from the limo would affect your graphics and analysis.

Quote me, or admit you're just making things up.

Of course:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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.

Now, state for the record that you DO understand that Chaney's shadow, had he been right alongside JFK - WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL IF ALTGENS WERE ALONGSIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMO. And likewise, if Altgens had been 100 feet in front of the limo, Chaney's shadow would be plainly visible if he was just making the turn on to Elm street.

Altgens' distance from the limo is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to your imagined "sightlines" - and the fact that you refuse to admit this simple fact simply shows either your ignorance of basic geometry, or an inherent dishonesty... take your pick.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:And unless you can document the distance that Altgens was from the limo - all your arguments are meaningless.

The sightlines don't lie, Ben. I placed him in almost exactly the same spot as Cutler did, and close to where Roberdeau and others have put him. Roberdeau is a member here, by the way, so why don't you ask him what he thinks of your Chaney theory? As I've pointed out many times before, my argument doesn't depend on whether you place Chaney 20% or 25% closer (than Hargis) to Altgens.

The "sightlines" are absolutely and fundamentally based on the distance that Altgens was from the limo. That's a fact, whether or not you're willing to admit it.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I find it amusing that you're too much the coward to state publicly what the speed of the limo was as it went under the overpass.

And you're too much of a coward to acknowledge the possibility that the cars in front of Chaney made a brief stop west of the overpass.

How can I be a "coward" to "acknowledge" an impossibility? You admit that the limo could have been traveling at 40 mph as it went under the overpass - the leading vehicle was simply not that far ahead that it could have stopped... and still stayed ahead of the Presidential limo...

AT NO TIME did the Presidential limo entirely pass the lead vehicle...

Why can't you document where this alleged conversation took place???
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:So the entire topic of Chaney's conversation with Curry is one you don't want to touch - I can understand that.

It has nothing to do with the Altgens photo or the Z film. But I can understand why you desperately want to change the subject.

You really think it has nothing to do with the extant Z film???

Why are you afraid of James Chaney?

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-07-2016, 06:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(08-07-2016, 01:45 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

Ben Holmes]

I see my statement about your ignorance of the distance factor is still unrefuted.

How am I supposed to refute something that exists only in your imagination?

You ADMITTED that you didnt understand how Altgens' distance from the limo would affect your graphics and analysis.

Quote me, or admit you're just making things up.

Of course:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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.

[color=#FFFFFF Wrote:xxx[/color]
Your dishonesty is absolutely breathtaking. That's not me "admitting" anything. It's me asking what the heck you mean by asserted distance. Asserted by whom? What you see in the diagram is an estimated location based on where the sight lines meet.

Now, state for the record that you DO understand that Chaney's shadow, had he been right alongside JFK - WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL IF ALTGENS WERE ALONGSIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMO. And likewise, if Altgens had been 100 feet in front of the limo, Chaney's shadow would be plainly visible if he was just making the turn on to Elm street.

Sure. If you'll state for the record that you understand that Altgens was in Dallas on the 11/22/63.

Altgens' distance from the limo is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to your imagined "sightlines" - and the fact that you refuse to admit this simple fact simply shows either your ignorance of basic geometry, or an inherent dishonesty... take your pick.

You forgot the obvious third option.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:And unless you can document the distance that Altgens was from the limo - all your arguments are meaningless.

The sightlines don't lie, Ben. I placed him in almost exactly the same spot as Cutler did, and close to where Roberdeau and others have put him. Roberdeau is a member here, by the way, so why don't you ask him what he thinks of your Chaney theory? As I've pointed out many times before, my argument doesn't depend on whether you place Chaney 20% or 25% closer (than Hargis) to Altgens.

The "sightlines" are absolutely and fundamentally based on the distance that Altgens was from the limo. That's a fact, whether or not you're willing to admit it.

I explained the relationship above.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I find it amusing that you're too much the coward to state publicly what the speed of the limo was as it went under the overpass.

And you're too much of a coward to acknowledge the possibility that the cars in front of Chaney made a brief stop west of the overpass.

How can I be a "coward" to "acknowledge" an impossibility? You admit that the limo could have been traveling at 40 mph as it went under the overpass - the leading vehicle was simply not that far ahead that it could have stopped... and still stayed ahead of the Presidential limo...

AT NO TIME did the Presidential limo entirely pass the lead vehicle...

Why can't you document where this alleged conversation took place???

No photographers were present.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:So the entire topic of Chaney's conversation with Curry is one you don't want to touch - I can understand that.

It has nothing to do with the Altgens photo or the Z film. But I can understand why you desperately want to change the subject.

You really think it has nothing to do with the extant Z film???

You've got something exactly right for once.

Why are you afraid of James Chaney?

Why don't you post your own diagram? What are you scared of?

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-09-2016, 11:05 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-07-2016, 06:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Of course:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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.

xxx
Your dishonesty is absolutely breathtaking. That's not me "admitting" anything. It's me asking what the heck you mean by asserted distance. Asserted by whom? What you see in the diagram is an estimated location based on where the sight lines meet.

Now, state for the record that you DO understand that Chaney's shadow, had he been right alongside JFK - WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL IF ALTGENS WERE ALONGSIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMO. And likewise, if Altgens had been 100 feet in front of the limo, Chaney's shadow would be plainly visible if he was just making the turn on to Elm street.

Sure. If you'll state for the record that you understand that Altgens was in Dallas on the 11/22/63.

Altgens' distance from the limo is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to your imagined "sightlines" - and the fact that you refuse to admit this simple fact simply shows either your ignorance of basic geometry, or an inherent dishonesty... take your pick.

You forgot the obvious third Yoption.

Well... you've lost this one, Mark.

You simply don't have the honesty to admit that the distance from Altgens to the Limo is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to your "sightlines".

But despite your refusal to admit it... it's still a fact.

And one that you cannot possibly refute.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-09-2016, 11:05 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:   

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I find it amusing that you're too much the coward to state publicly what the speed of the limo was as it went under the overpass.

And you're too much of a coward to acknowledge the possibility that the cars in front of Chaney made a brief stop west of the overpass.

How can I be a "coward" to "acknowledge" an impossibility? You admit that the limo could have been traveling at 40 mph as it went under the overpass - the leading vehicle was simply not that far ahead that it could have stopped... and still stayed ahead of the Presidential limo...

AT NO TIME did the Presidential limo entirely pass the lead vehicle...

Why can't you document where this alleged conversation took place???

No photographers were present.

Such amusing cowardice!!!

You admit that the Presidential limo was traveling roughly 40mph at the last of the extant Z-film, you agree that the Presidential limo never completely passed the lead vehicle - yet you presume a stop before they got to the Hospital - BASED ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

There's ZERO evidence for a stop of either vehicle outside of Dealey Plaza. There's plenty of evidence of a stop INSIDE Dealey Plaza. You can make no sense whatsoever of Chief Curry's testimony, nor will you even try... because his testimony quite clearly implies that he was still in Dealey Plaza when Chaney rode up to speak to him.

I base what happened on eyewitness testimony... you can't.

You've lost another one, Mark... you simply cannot defend your belief by citing the evidence.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-09-2016, 03:08 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-09-2016, 11:05 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:   

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I find it amusing that you're too much the coward to state publicly what the speed of the limo was as it went under the overpass.

And you're too much of a coward to acknowledge the possibility that the cars in front of Chaney made a brief stop west of the overpass.

How can I be a "coward" to "acknowledge" an impossibility? You admit that the limo could have been traveling at 40 mph as it went under the overpass - the leading vehicle was simply not that far ahead that it could have stopped... and still stayed ahead of the Presidential limo...

AT NO TIME did the Presidential limo entirely pass the lead vehicle...

Why can't you document where this alleged conversation took place???

No photographers were present.

Such amusing cowardice!!!

You admit that the Presidential limo was traveling roughly 40mph at the last of the extant Z-film, you agree that the Presidential limo never completely passed the lead vehicle - yet you presume a stop before they got to the Hospital - BASED ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

There's ZERO evidence for a stop of either vehicle outside of Dealey Plaza. There's plenty of evidence of a stop INSIDE Dealey Plaza. You can make no sense whatsoever of Chief Curry's testimony, nor will you even try... because his testimony quite clearly implies that he was still in Dealey Plaza when Chaney rode up to speak to him.

I base what happened on eyewitness testimony... you can't.

You've lost another one, Mark... you simply cannot defend your belief by citing the evidence.

Zzzzzzzzzz, sorry, not interested. There was no limo stop in DP. Chaney was never alongside the limo in DP. These are the obvious facts.

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Such amusing cowardice!!!

You admit that the Presidential limo was traveling roughly 40mph at the last of the extant Z-film, you agree that the Presidential limo never completely passed the lead vehicle - yet you presume a stop before they got to the Hospital - BASED ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Which fact that I listed do you dispute?

Why are you so afraid to debate this topic?

Speak up, Mark! Tell everyone your scenario that explains the known facts... If you cannot - then you might as well admit it.

Because you know I'll simply keep pointing it out.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:There's ZERO evidence for a stop of either vehicle outside of Dealey Plaza. There's plenty of evidence of a stop INSIDE Dealey Plaza. You can make no sense whatsoever of Chief Curry's testimony, nor will you even try... because his testimony quite clearly implies that he was still in Dealey Plaza when Chaney rode up to speak to him.

I base what happened on eyewitness testimony... you can't.

You've lost another one, Mark... you simply cannot defend your belief by citing the evidence.

Zzzzzzzzzz, sorry, not interested. There was no limo stop in DP. Chaney was never alongside the limo in DP. These are the obvious facts.

It's not a matter of "interest" - you pretend that I'm afraid to talk about James Chaney... yet clearly it's YOU that's afraid to examine his actions & words that day.

You keep asserting that there was no limo stop in DP - yet you know that this is EXACTLY what the evidence shows... which means that the Z-film & Nix film were altered.

I understand why you're "not interested" - it's quite embarrassing to constantly be found contradicting the actual evidence. And proposing impossible scenarios to try to account for Chaney's conversation with Curry.