Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:Are you intending to make money from this forum, Ben?

Yes.



But the real question is how much.



I suspect that I'll eventually earn enough to pay the yearly cost of the domain name.



If you want to earn money with a forum, picking a narrow topic such as the JFK case isn't the way to do it.

So it's kind of like a public service?

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:26 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=979#p979

If I told you what you could do with your straw men and red herrings, I'd be censored, so I won't. The question is poorly phrased, btw, as "lossy" relates to loss of information, not loss of pixels per se. And it's still breathtakingly dishonest of you to pretend that my arguments depend on pixel perfection. My images are more than accurate enough to bring my points across. What would you say if I demanded atomic clock precision from you? Give me Chaney's exact coordinates, or you lose.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:22 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=978#p978

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:This is really a very simple issue.



Do photos LOSE pixels in JPEG compression?



If you're honest and state that the answer is yes, then you know that you cannot measure what is no longer there.



If you're dishonest, and claim that the answer is no, then there's nothing more that needs to be said.



It's interesting that you refuse to help Patrick out...

Is it just me, or does it also seem to you that Ben doesn't want to talk about Chaney anymore. Well, who can blame him? Let's take a final look at his two pet arguments before we lower them into the ground.

Naw... let's see your answer to the above question first.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:54 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=976#p976

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Are you intending to make money from this forum, Ben?

Yes.



But the real question is how much.



I suspect that I'll eventually earn enough to pay the yearly cost of the domain name.



If you want to earn money with a forum, picking a narrow topic such as the JFK case isn't the way to do it.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:57 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=977#p977

Are you intending to make money from this forum, Ben?

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:47 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=105&p=975#p975

Is it just me, or does it also seem to you that Ben doesn't want to talk about Chaney anymore. Well, who can blame him? Let's take a final look at his two pet arguments before we lower them into the ground.



1) Chaney is closer than Hargis to Altgens.



Yes, Ben, we actually agree with you on that one, but that still doesn't put him alongside JFK:









(Click to enlarge)



2) Ben (and everyone he asks) think Chaney is right up there with JFK in the Altgens photo.



Well, just by eyeballing the photo, it's easy to underestimate the distances involved. Who would think, for example, that the distance from the tip of Chaney's shadow (marked X below) to the curb in the background (B) roughly equals the width of the road?

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:20 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=974#p974

Mark...



This is really a very simple issue.



Do photos LOSE pixels in JPEG compression?



If you're honest and state that the answer is yes, then you know that you cannot measure what is no longer there.



If you're dishonest, and claim that the answer is no, then there's nothing more that needs to be said.



It's interesting that you refuse to help Patrick out...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:04 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=973#p973

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:

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.



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?

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:36 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=972#p972

Patrick C wrote:

Wow, I have not been called a liar.....

I reserve labeling someone a liar when they actually post a lie. Did you post something you knew to be a lie, and I missed it?

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:As is normal with WCR Supporters, you didn't really address the point that was being made, so I'll make it again:

The following facts fit far better with the intention of doing a cover-up...



For at the first meeting of the Warren Commission, here's some of Chief Warren's statements:



He did not want the Commission to employ any of their own investigators.

He did not want the Commission to gather evidence. Instead he wished for them to rely on reports made by other agencies like the FBI and Secret Service.

He did not want their hearings to be public. He did not want to employ the power of subpoena.

Incredibly, he did not even want to call any witnesses. He wanted to rely on interviews done by other agencies.

He then made a very curious comment, "Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.



I know that not a SINGLE believer will step up and defend these facts as the beginnings of a real investigation...



Note that Patrick failed to do what I said no believer will... Patrick cannot defend these actions & statements as the beginning of a real investigation. The Warren Commission was a political operation designed to quash any notion of a conspiracy... and they failed to succeed in doing so...

There were yes I am sure political elements (the avoidance of the Castro plots by the CIA for example), but according to the likes of David Belin, they were absolutely urged to seek out a conspiracy.....problem is they did not fine one....

You've continued to refuse to address the fact that they demonstrated, right from the beginning, that they didn't want to actually do an investigation...

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:The HSCA admitted to a probable conspiracy, and pointed out a number of flaws in the Warren Commission's handling of the case ... but the HSCA simply doesn't exist to the WCR Supporters...

Yes of course it does and I for one refer to it far more that the WC, but the HSCA concluded Oswald acted alone UNTIL the dictabelt evidence arrived......which IMO has been debunked completely. Blakey of course maintained the "Mob did it", but he never really showed anything but his hunches on that.....



Fonzi came out of it thinking a conspiracy existed and Lopez, but show me the "evidence" from HSCA that indicates a conspiracy....?

Why would you ask me to show you what the HSCA classified?



P.S. Still running from telling everyone how you would differentiate a shot heard from the Railroad yards from a shot heard from the Grassy Knoll.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:37 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=106&p=971#p971

Patrick C wrote:

I think you are taking this rather too seriously Garry. You are being tedious.



It really does not matter what we call the theory about the non fatal wounds and whether I call it the SBT or SBF matters not one jot frankly.



It is not a question of shame - that is just SILLY! Yes I am a person of integrity and yes I have had a very privileged education and yes you are being sadly trivial and pedantic.

Perhaps this is why you're labeled a liar so often, Patrick...



Words don't matter to you as much as they do to other people.



Still a coward over the issue of how to differentiate a shot from the Railroad yards from a shot from the Grassy Knoll.



Can you offer a reason other than cowardice for refusing to answer?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:19 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=41&p=970#p970