Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

In a recent book, it was asserted that Lee Harvey Oswald was a 'crack' shot... but was he?



Lee Harvey Oswald was a poor shot. Scoring a 191 in his last rifle range qualification (May 1959 - over 4 years earlier), only one point above the absolute minimum required of a Marine. Anyone who has served in the Marine Corps is quite familiar with the ability that a 191 score illustrates, and it's simply not good enough.



(For those of you who are Marines, I might note that I quite often matched or beat a 191 score leaving the 300 yard line, with the 500 still to go. So I do have the experience to judge what LHO's scores mean.)



Another fact rarely mentioned is that his USMC experience was with the M-14, which is NOT a bolt-action rifle. To put it another way - LHO had virtually NO known experience with firing bolt-action rifles. (His sole experience appears to be two hunting occasions with a borrowed .22 bolt-action rifle - with his brother). Considering that the evidence shows that the Mannlicher-Carcano that was allegedly used had a difficult to operate bolt (3H 447, 449), eccentric trigger pull (3H 447), maladjusted scope (3h 405), disintegrating firing pin (3H 447, CE2974), and a homemade rifle sling that wasn't very usable (3H 397), the problems that the WCR faced was in convincing anyone that LHO had the experience or practice to overcome these difficulties.



Since he didn't have the experience, could he perhaps have taken the time to practice? In her earliest statements, from Dec 4th-16th, Marina invariably stated that she had no knowledge of LHO practicing with the MC. (CE 1785; CE 1401 pg 286; CE 1790; CE 1403 pg 735). It wasn't until two months later, during her testimony for the WC, that she for the first time asserted that LHO had practiced with the rifle - interestingly, one of her statements (Feb 17th, CE 2694 pg 5) was about rifle cleaning/practice in January - although the rifle wasn't mailed by Klein's for another 2 months... Amusingly, the following day, she retracted her story about the January cleaning/practice, realizing, or perhaps more probable, being reminded; that the rifle hadn't even been mailed for 2 more months...



So, how did the WCR characterize this contradictory evidence from Marina on any rifle practice by LHO? By ignoring all statements that they didn't want to hear. The casual reader of the WCR will be completely ignorant of Marina's two months of consistent statements of ignorance on the topic of any rifle practice by LHO.



Another eyewitness to a lack of rifle practice was Mrs. Paine:

Mr. JENNER. Did you know, are you familiar with the report that appeared in the Fort Worth Press on January 15, 1964, reporting that you had told Marvin Lane that Lee could not have taken the rifle from your garage and gone to practice without your knowledge? Do you recall that?

Mrs. PAINE. I do.

Mr. JENNER. Mark Lane.

Mrs. PAINE. It is Mark but that perhaps was in the Fort Worth Press. I recall that.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever make that statement to a reporter for the Fort Worth Press?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes, I did; with slight variation. It always came out a more definite statement in the press than I meant to make it.

Mr. JENNER. What did you say to the reporter then?

Mrs. PAINE. I said I did not see how he could have taken the gun from the garage without my knowing it. There were two weekends particularly in question which had been reported in the Press that someone had seen him at a firing range, one being the weekend of the 9th and 10th, and I was home virtually all of that weekend except Monday the 11th as I have already described. The other being the following weekend, and I didn't see how he could have the weekend he was not out at my house, I didn't see how he could have come out, taken the gun, gone away without my knowledge, and if the gun had not been in that garage that weekend, I didn't see what the purpose of his coming out the 21st of November was in the situation. And this is what I told Mr. Tackett of the Fort Worth Press.

Mr. JENNER. Did you also tell Mr. Tackett in addition to, that his reasons for his not engaging in rifle practice that weekend or any other weekend was that he couldn't drive an automobile?

Mrs. PAINE. Very probably.

Mr. JENNER. And also that he couldn't have walked that far for rifle practice?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes. By that far I mean there is no place you can walk to from my house, not only not to the firing range, but to an open enough place where you could fire. It would be difficult to walk that far.

Mr. JENNER. Where was the firing-range at which it was suggested he practiced? Mrs. PAINE. I don't know exactly. It was in the Grand Prairie area, just south of where we are located. But it would be a 15-minute car drive I would expect. (3H 125)

The WCR attempted to prove in another way that LHO had been practicing, stating on page 192-193 that:

Examination of the cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building established that they had been previously loaded and ejected from the assassination rifle, which would indicate that Oswald practiced operating the bolt.

But as with many other misrepresentations that the WCR was guilty of, this too was a lie. Here is the underlying "evidence" from the FBI that the WCR used:

... the extractor and ejector marks on C6 as well as on C7, C8, and C38 did not possess sufficient characteristics for identifying the weapon which produced them." (CE 2968)

I've many times asked the question - why does the truth need lies to support it, and no believer has been able to provide any answer at all...



The FBI tried desperately to find any proof of LHO practicing with the MC - even collecting rifle shells from various locations in Dallas and Irving where Oswald might have practiced... this included 23 POUNDS of rifle shells from the Sports Drome Rifle Range, at which eyewitnesses claim to have seen Oswald on several occasions. Laboratory examination failed to turn up a single shell coming from the MC. (CE 3049) Considering that they collected 1,336 cartridges, and 80 of them were 6.5mm MC shells, it's interesting that the FBI was unable to demonstrate that LHO did any rifle practice... for they were certainly trying to!



So one of the only two eyewitnesses to claim that LHO ever did any rifle practice contradicted her own statements, and had originally claimed otherwise; and no proof has ever been uncovered showing that LHO, a rather poor shot; had ever practiced with a rifle he was never trained to shoot. (I've left out the problems with De Mohrenschildt's statements, that will take a post as long as this one...)



Tis interesting that the WCR felt it necessary to lie on these points...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:47 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=98&p=839#p839

One of the first policemen that poured into the Grassy Knoll area immediately after the last shots were fired was Patrolman Joe Smith, who had rushed into the parking lot behind the fence because a women had told him that the shots had come "from the bushes." From his testimony:

... and this woman came up to me and she was just in hysterics. She told me, "They are shooting the President from the bushes." So I immediately proceeded up here.

Interestingly, in his testimony he also places the sound of the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll - although by the time of his testimony he ascribes it to an "echo". Funny also, that he didn't mention the fact that he'd smelled gunpowder. But it's not exactly a secret that many eyewitnesses were carefully coached prior to their testimony.



But the most interesting point is the "Secret Service Agent" that he'd encountered, exactly where many eyewitnesses and the HSCA put a gunman:

Mr SMITH: Yes, sir; I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn't alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there. I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don't know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.

Mr. LIEBELER: Did you accost this man?

Mr. SMITH: Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.

Mr. LIEBELER: Do you remember who it was?

Mr. SMITH: No, sir; I don't--because then we started checking the cars.

From Anthony Summer's book, Conspiracy:

Secret Service agents, in 1963, were the essence of the crewcut, besuited American young man. The man encountered in the parking lot was different. As Officer Smith puts it, "He look like an auto mechanic. He had on a sports shirt and a sports pants. But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic's hands. And afterwards it didn't ring true for the Secret Service. (Pg. 81)

Of course, we know know that there were no legitimate Secret Service agents on the Grassy Knoll. Besides Officer Smith and the unnamed Deputy Sheriff that was with him, others also saw this man... Gorden Arnold, Jean Hill, and officer John Tilson. (Tilson actually gave chase when this unknown man got into a black car, and went speeding off... Tilson actually got the license number before losing the suspect - but like so much evidence in this case, it simply disappeared).



Often, believers are fond of arguing that no other gunmen were seen, yet the facts are quite different. Someone producing false "Secret Service" identification argues for a conspiracy that was planned far in advance, and this bit of evidence for conspiracy might never have been noticed - until it was discovered that no Secret Service agents remained in Dealey Plaza after the shooting.



Another false "Secret Service" sighting was right behind the TSBD...

Mr. BELIN - Then you went around to the back of the building?

Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN - Was anyone around in the back when you got there?

Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.

They weren't, of course. Who were they?



Why were so many "Secret Service" agents in Dealey Plaza? We have at least 3 men claiming to be Secret Service agents, yet we KNOW that they aren't. Trying to develop a non-conspiratorial explanation for these impostors has proven to be quite difficult for the believer's crowd...



For further information, here's one attempt, and it's rebuttal:



http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ljohns.txt

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:35 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=97&p=838#p838

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?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:25 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=837#p837

It's nice that you're filling in for Patrick C. while he takes the day off. However, lest I remind you, you're defending-supporting 1964 WCR conclusions/case evidence.



With that in mind, post what kind of image your reviewing, it's current format and what generation the image you're posting is and its source holding. Let's get you tightened up here, this is not Lapoon Lamson 101 faux assassination film/photo imagery review.

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:20 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=836#p836

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote: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.

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).

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote: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.

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?



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?

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, that guy is just as confused as Ben.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:08 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=834#p834

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?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:42 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=833#p833

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

David Healy wrote:son, only a fool would take to the bank serious interpretation of a 72dpi JPEG image. Get a grip!

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.



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.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:19 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=832#p832

and then nutters will take an interpolated field of video (one of 2 fields that make up a single frame) save THAT as a .jepg file and wonder what the big problem is. "It's a frame 237 (or some such) isn't it?"



Good luck with the troll, Ben. My problem with these guys when it comes to the film/photographic record is they KNOW this, yet they persist. Kinda points toward something else... diversion, they got N-O-T-H-I-N-G these days--lmao!

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:00 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=831#p831

Mark Ulrik wrote:

David Healy wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:A reference, no doubt, to Ben's "You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's."

son, only a fool would take to the bank serious interpretation of a 72dpi JPEG image. Get a grip!

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"???



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.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:47 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=830#p830