[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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!!

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?