[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:LOOK AT THE FREAKING DIAGRAM! DOES IT LOOK LIKE CHANEY IS RIGHT ALONGSIDE JFK?

Yes.

Then you have lost.

How silly! You've continued to run from the many points I raise on this issue. I venture you've never dared to show the photo to someone completely unfamiliar with the JFK case, and asked them where Chaney is... as I've done a number of times now (most recently just yesterday)

And how can I have "lost" - when you ADMIT THAT CHANEY IS CLOSER TO ALTGENS THAN HARGIS???

Mark Ulrik Wrote:In your version:

I'll note for the record that you didn't even notice the fact that my image COMPLETELY destroys your image as evidence... I could equally have moved Chaney's motorcycle AHEAD of the limo... and then argued that both the extant Z-film and Altgens' photo were altered.

You see, an image isn't evidence. It's a graphic representation of how you interpret the evidence. You somehow missed that fact.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:1) Chaney is in Zapruder's FOV. Problem: Chaney does not appear in the relevant Z frame(s). The Z film trumps your wishful thinking.

A common logical fallacy. You cannot use the presumed authenticity of the extant Z-film as evidence that it's authentic. That's not the way it works. The Altgens' photo is just one of many bits of evidence showing that the extant Z-film isn't authentic.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:2) Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was. Problem: Chaney's windshield appears only 4-5% wider in the photo.

This is sheer speculation... based on nothing at all. We cannot go back in time and measure out the distances involved.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Additionally, had Chaney actually been that close to the camera, he would've been riding unrealistically close to the limo. Did any witnesses report a near-collision like this?

You see what happens when you use an image as evidence?

I've stated on numerous occasions that Chaney was less than a dozen feet away from JFK. I DARE YOU TO DISPUTE THAT STATEMENT!


This is quite amusing! Tell us Mark, why do you apparently think that this is a four lane street?

It's good that you've publicly admitted that "X" is the shadow from Chaney's motorcycle... that's an admission that I've NEVER been able to get in the last decade from any other believer.

But this image cannot prove your case, any more than your previous image did...

Give us a SCIENTIFIC reason why Chaney appears to be alongside the limo. Or better yet, borrow a limo & motorcycle and recreate the photo. (Interestingly, in over 50 years, no believer has dared to do this - even though it would prove absolutely devastating to those like me, who accept that this photo impugns the extant Z-film.)

P.S. Your last image contains the proof that it's not accurate... draw a parallel line (to A-B) starting from the right side of Chaney's fairing to the limo windshield... it would quite clearly not be completely visible - and would be blocked by the limo's windshield. It's always amusing when a poster's imagery proves them wrong...