Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

David Healy wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

David Healy wrote:THUD!

Charade time...

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!

I don't mind relative measurements of larger or smaller... but when I hear people speaking of pixel measurements on a lossy format, I just have to laugh!







Mark, bow out now while you can... because I can easily produce example duplicate photos in lossless and lossy format, and show the ABSOLUTE difference between them. Take your time, Google is your friend, look up the topic of photo compression.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:42 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=829#p829

David Healy wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

David Healy wrote:THUD!



Charade time...

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?"

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:42 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=828#p828

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Kindly explain what you mean. Last time I checked, JPEG was a file format for raster images.

Here is just one of thousands of online explanations...



Now, where's your admission that your pixel counts are nonsense?

In other words, you have no clue.

I just proved otherwise. I cited for my statement... you still refuse to cite.



You're now trying to deny that JPEG is not a lossy compression method.



You won't cite for any such claim. You CANNOT cite for a falsehood.

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Let me help. When I use the expression "pixel count," I'm talking about letting my raster graphics editor (in this case Paint.NET) do the work for me. Its line tool gives me the length in "pixels" (not a count, but rather a measure of length, using the width (or height) of a single pixel as unit):

Can't be done on a photo that's not raw data. You no longer HAVE the original photo. You can get close, but anyone asserting distance at the pixel level simply doesn't know what they're talking about. So you're getting schooled... you ignored my cite (probably didn't bother to click through) so here's a few bits I collected online to educate you:

Remember, because the image is compressed and saved to JPEG which is a “loss” file format, much of the initial image information and detail is discarded and cannot be recovered.

JPEG is "lossy", meaning that the image you get out of decompression isn't quite identical to what you originally put in.

JPEG has a hard time with very sharp edges: a row of pure-black pixels adjacent to a row of pure-white pixels, for example. Sharp edges tend to come out blurred unless you use a very high quality setting. Edges this sharp are rare in scanned photographs, but are fairly common in GIF files: borders, overlaid text, etc. The blurriness is particularly objectionable with text that's only a few pixels high. If you have a GIF with a lot of small-size overlaid text, don't JPEG it.

Now, explain to everyone how you're measuring distance in pixels WHEN THE PIXELS MAY NO LONGER EXIST.



Or run again...



P.S. For anyone that wants to learn, simply take a lossless photo, such as a PNG or GIF, resave it as a JPG - then load both photos at the same time, zoom in close on some particular feature in both photos, and note the difference. The difference will be more dramatic as you increase the compression level of the JPG. Mark doesn't want to do this, since he'd learn who's telling the truth, and who's ignorant of photo compression.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:36 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=827#p827

Mark Ulrik wrote:

David Healy wrote:THUD!



Charade time...

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!

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:36 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=826#p826

David Healy wrote:

THUD!



Charade time...

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

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:09 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=825#p825

THUD!



Charade time...

Statistics: Posted by David Healy — Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:36 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=824#p824

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

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.

Kindly explain what you mean. Last time I checked, JPEG was a file format for raster images.

Here is just one of thousands of online explanations...



Now, where's your admission that your pixel counts are nonsense?

In other words, you have no clue. Figures.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:00 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=823#p823

Patrick C wrote:

McAdams shows clearly the witness statement and the corresponding location such as Knoll or TSBD or could not say.



This is where the totals come from. There is no deception. The statements are accurate and so is the determination of the opinion on the source.

Once again:

Now, I'm guessing that you're referencing McAdam's listing of earwitnesses.



But unless you're willing to defend that list against my critical cross-examination - then you literally have nothing.



Because your opinion isn't worth anything if you can't defend it.



So tell us Patrick - WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO DEFEND MCADAMS EARWITNESS LIST???

Ben Holmes wrote:

The simple fact is that the vast majority of witness by some considerable magnitude, thought there were three, two or three or just two shots.

And cannot be explained by you other than by arguing that half the witnesses were mistaken.

Patrick C wrote:

It would be no surprise to me if there were only 2 shots, IMO had there been three or more shots, it seems logical to deduce that there might have been far more reports of 4, 5 or even 6 shots given the composite sound of gunfire and echoes in the plaza.

Yet you still refuse to admit that all these years, critics have been absolutely correct when they point out that only two shots came from the TSBD, and that the earliest evidence (and CE543) shows this.



Why do you refuse to admit that critics have been right, Patrick?

Patrick C wrote:

One of the reasons I rate Phantom Shot so highly is that it looks at all the alternative theories around a second shooter (or third) and their locations and expertly dismisses most alternatives as what they are - delusional or as I prefer to say politely "fairy tales".

Yet you can't provide any such refutation... you can only allude to it... why is that, Patrick?



Is it because you know that such generality cannot be decisively demolished? (as would happen if you actually tried to refute multiple locations...)

Patrick C wrote:

Less politely one might describe them as wishful thinking by those of the conspiratorial mind set.

Less politely, I'd refer to it as cowardice on the part of anyone posting such generalities, and refusing to CITE THE EVIDENCE that shows only a single location for a shooter.

Patrick C wrote:

Of course we can never rule out a second shooter from the rear making a missed shot - and that bullet disintegrating, but of course we know of no evidence for that shooter.

Of course we do. Any number of witnesses referred to a bullet striking the street. You know this. Why deny it?

Patrick C wrote:

Do you mean the 6.5mm black object?



It is obviously a photographic anomaly. One shot struck JFK in the head and the bullet exited, leaving several small particles in a trail from rear to front.

ROTFLMAO!!!



A "photographic anomaly" that just happens to be 6.5mm in diameter!!! Tell us Patrick, what are the odds?



And that the experts on the Clark Panel and HSCA all stated was a bullet fragment...



It's amusing that believers whine when critics disregard what "experts" say, then do it themselves when they don't want to accept what is right in front of them...



But tell us Patrick... what credible explanation can you give for this "photographic anomaly" to be completely hidden from the prosectors?



On what basis did THEY judge it to be a "photographic anomaly" and totally forget about it?



(All rhetorical questions... as usual, you'll be "too busy" to answer them...)

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:03 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=822#p822

Lee Abbott wrote:

Patrick C wrote:I would be confident that in an open public debate with you Ben, with an audience of 100% neutrals I would convince a majority there was no conspiracy.

That's the epitome of a lame excuse, Patrick.... Either the evidence supports your case - or it doesn't...

You put your finger on the exact problem that Patrick has. He can't seem to win any debates when he's given all the time he wants to research the evidence, post videos, photos, images... get his thoughts precisely in order...



Yet thinks that in the rough & tumble of a spoken debate, he'll somehow come out ahead...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:25 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=821#p821

Patrick C wrote:

Interesting set of posts on selected assassination films and Altgens stills.



Post also about "where is Chaney" which no doubt will be of interest to you pro film alteration supporters.



Quite detailed and some useful images.

[url]

http://jfkfilmanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/[/url]

From the above cite: "Finally, nothing illustrates the Altgens Anomaly more than Officer Chaney’s position right next to Kennedy watching the bullets (all the bullets) slam into Kennedy. Chaney stated that this is exactly where he was, but it is depicted in no film or photograph except Altgens.

...

While there are a lot of things that don’t seem right one thing struck me as especially anomalous - the Altgens’ Photograph. I returned to Dealey Plaza 2 more times to size things up, and I have done extensive reading on the assassination. I have discussed this in previous entries at this site. What I have found is that Altgens has images that are unduplicated in any still or moving picture images. These images are supported by eyewitness testimony in a way that none of the other moving pictures or images are. In short Altgens’ images are consistent with eye witness testimony; the other images are not, in part or in whole."

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:17 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=820#p820