[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Right out of the CT playbook: When busted, make random demands. "Could you make that 96dpi?" "I don't like the background color." "Why not lovely pink?" "I don't trust your fancy software." "Who needs math?" "Trust me when I tell you he's right alongside JFK" "All my friends agree with with me, so why can't you?"

Who's been "busted"???

You have. On your silly speculation that Chaney is right alongside JFK in Altgens. Remember? It is, after all, the reason why you're so desperately trying to derail the conversation.

Ben Holmes Wrote:I've QUOTED & cited for what I've stated. You cannot do pixel accurate measurements on jpgs... THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE DATA... what's so hard to understand about that?

Tell us Mark - why can't you simply admit the truth? JPG is a lossy format, and I understand that you didn't know that, but you've been schooled, and it's time to give up your claim that you can measure to the pixel on a format that simply doesn't have the data.

Amazing. Yes, of course, JPEG is a lossy format, but atomic clock precision is hardly required here. It's doesn't really matter that much whether you estimate Hargis to be 20% or 25% or 30% farther away than Chaney. It's still significantly more than suggested by the difference in windshield width.

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.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Let me remind you that your original claim was this:

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

But you can do pixel counts on JPEGs. You can always do pixel counts on raster graphics. Results may vary, of course, depending on compression method and level. The question is whether the deviations are significant and relevant. In this case, they aren't. You're just blowing smoke because you've realized that the math is against you.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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?