Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

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... And besides, how would you ever convince anyone with your high squeaky stuttering voice?

Statistics: Posted by Lee Abbott — Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:13 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=819#p819

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:Notice where Ben puts Chaney in his edited version of my diagram. I did a rough pixel count: 223 from centre of circle to Chaney, and 280 to Hargis. That's a 25% difference.

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?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:10 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=818#p818

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben is an advocate. The truth is a side issue to him; it's all about winning or losing.



Ben has never lost an argument. According to Ben.

I've often challenged believers to CITE the evidence that contradicts what I post...



I usually face nothing but dead silence.



Tell us Mark... What was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?



Will you run too?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:03 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=817#p817

Patrick C wrote:

Lost what..?



I am not hear to win or loose. I don't give a jot.

Ben Holmes wrote:time and time again you refuse to make a case refuting what I've stated about the evidence.

We have exchanged views on the case for YEARS on Amazon and I have challenged you HUNDREDS of times. So that is hardly "time and time again" is it Holmes?

Quote just ONE example where I've not answered your 'challenge'. But you won't... you can't. You KNOW that there's nothing you can say about the evidence that I don't have an answer for.



The same is not true for you. You run from quite a bit of the evidence in this case, you do so over and over again...then pretend that you're too "busy" to get around to answering.



What was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?



It's a question that can be answered in a single sentence... yet you've repeatedly run from it.



And this is just ONE example!!

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.

And yet here, in a written forum, where each has the opportunity to think about, research, and answer fully - you can't do it.



Yet you pretend that in a different arena, you'd suddenly start winning...

Ben Holmes wrote:

Most of your arguments are weak and many are sensational - for example your multiple 5 to 7 shooters, including a scenario in which there are two shooters firing out of the SE 6th floor window which is based on pure guesswork on your part.

You're lying again, Patrick. You know quite well that I've pointed out that eyewitnesses put a shooter in the opposite window from the SN. It's not "pure guesswork" as you claim. Tell us Patrick, why do I successfully (and unrefuted by you) point out lies time and time again from you and other believers - yet the opposite never seems to happen?



Why does the 'truth' need lies to support it?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:01 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=816#p816

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Patrick C wrote:"Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was."



Where does this figure come from please....

Notice where Ben puts Chaney in his edited version of my diagram. I did a rough pixel count: 223 from centre of circle to Chaney, and 280 to Hargis. That's a 25% difference.

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.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:42 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=815#p815

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Patrick C wrote:"Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was."



Where does this figure come from please....

Notice where Ben puts Chaney in his edited version of my diagram. I did a rough pixel count: 223 from centre of circle to Chaney, and 280 to Hargis. That's a 25% difference.

You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...



Kindly publish the photo you're using.



Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:27 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=814#p814

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.)

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:17 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=813#p813

Ben is an advocate. The truth is a side issue to him; it's all about winning or losing.



Ben has never lost an argument. According to Ben.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:12 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=812#p812

Patrick C wrote:

"Hargis is 25% farther away from Altgens than Chaney was."



Where does this figure come from please....

Notice where Ben puts Chaney in his edited version of my diagram. I did a rough pixel count: 223 from centre of circle to Chaney, and 280 to Hargis. That's a 25% difference.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:58 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=811#p811

Lost what..?



I am not hear to win or loose. I don't give a jot.



"time and time again you refuse to make a case refuting what I've stated about the evidence."



We have exchanged views on the case for YEARS on Amazon and I have challenged you HUNDREDS of times. So that is hardly "time and time again" is it Holmes?



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.



Most of your arguments are weak and many are sensational - for example your multiple 5 to 7 shooters, including a scenario in which there are two shooters firing out of the SE 6th floor window which is based on pure guesswork on your part.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:56 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=810#p810