[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Yes... they do.

You've just lied about what I stated.

YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.

You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.

I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.

This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.

How about this?

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Interestingly, you refuse to point out that I'm referring to the ACCURACY of pixel counts... here's my very first quote on the topic:

Quote:It would probably be meaningless to explain to you why jpegs are not something useful to derive precise pixel measurements. You'd only squirm some more...

And it would be senseless of me to quote the many times I've stated that you can COUNT the pixels, that they simply don't mean anything.

In a lossy compression format such as JPEG - the original total of pixels simply aren't there anymore

(And yes, I'm well aware that you could mistake the meaning of that statement too if you wanted...)

You're intentionally lying about what I've said, and you know that you are.

That makes you a very dishonest person, doesn't it?

But arguing a strawman is better than addressing the real questions that WCR Supporters run from... as listed in the original post in this thread.

Patrick does the same thing...

It's typically dishonest of you to pretend that it's completely meaningless to measure distances in JPEGs. Just to set you straight, I did the same measurements in a PNG and a 20% JPEG. Notice that, despite fuzzier edges and colors, the distances between the centres of the objects remain the same.



Let me remind you that pixels, in this context, is simply a convenient measurement unit. I could also have chosen millimetres. Or measured the distances on a printout with an old-fashioned ruler.



The figure 25% seems to scare you for some reason, since you're obviously willing to say anything to make it go away, but this is not the right way to do it. I didn't claim the figure was more than a rough estimate, and my argument doesn't depend on whether the true value is 23%, 25% or 27%. I didn't say it was 25.0000%.

This will be my last word in the JPEG "debate".

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.

Ha-ha. Now, that's a lie!

And yet, it was quite clear that it took you more than a post to catch up... you clearly didn't bother reading my first cite on the topic.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!

No such statement was ever made by me.

This shows that you realize you've lost...

No, it shows your inability to discuss issues. You'll do anything to derail a discussion when you realize that you have lost.

Still no quotes from me saying what you claim...

Do you really think that such dishonesty will convince anyone, Mark? Why can't you point out anyplace where I "complained" about people compressing their images?

The vast majority of the images I upload are very tightly compressed. But then, I'm not dumb enough to try to count pixels on compressed lossy photos, and make an argument based on it.

You've been schooled.

No, we've had a totally irrelevant discussion about pixels and JPEGs. Wake me up when you're ready to talk about Chaney.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, care to pick out another question to answer? Or are you, like Patrick; too "busy" to give credible explanations for the evidence?

Or perhaps you could help Patrick out, and tell us what would differentiate the Grassy Knoll from the Railroad yard as a location for a shot heard from the entrance to the TSBD.

It's been a while since I looked at McAdams' tabulation. Does it differentiate between GK and RY witnesses?