Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

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



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.



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.



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.



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".



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





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.



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.

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:47 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=809#p809

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



Where does this figure come from please....

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:32 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=808#p808

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.



http://jfkfilmanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:29 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=96&p=807#p807

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. In your version:



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.



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



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

Mark Ulrik wrote:

LOOK AT THE FREAKING DIAGRAM! DOES IT LOOK LIKE CHANEY IS RIGHT ALONGSIDE JFK?

Yes.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:30 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=805#p805

LOOK AT THE FREAKING DIAGRAM! DOES IT LOOK LIKE CHANEY IS RIGHT ALONGSIDE JFK?

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

1) Feel free to attempt to prove that Chaney is where you think he is.

2) What people keep telling you is that Chaney is behind the limo.

3) I don't care what you think "believers" have always stated. You're having this discussion with me.

The measurements given by Patrick make that point... basic trig makes that point - you've been unable to deny either.

Well, why don't you show me the actual math that proves your so-called point?

Actually, you've already agreed... as has Patrick (although abstractly).



It's a good thing when believers admit the truth.

Mark Ulrik wrote:

All you've done so far is wave your hands (and flog your own straw men). You don't have to prove to me that Chaney is closer than Hargis to Altgens. (I know he is.) The question is how much closer.

Right where he can be seen in the Altgens' print.

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Are you suggesting that comparing helmet widths is a reliable way of estimating the relative distances to the camera? Doesn't it strike you that the motorcycle windshields might provide a somewhat more reliable measure? Well, I made this composite a while back:

Don't you feel bad supporting my exact position against Patrick?



You see, it was PATRICK who was measuring helmets, and it was I who was demonstrating that the fairing provided a far better measurement.



So you need to speak with Patrick, and ask HIM why he thought to work with the helmets rather than with the fairings.



But he might not like you implying what you just tried to imply against me...

Mark Ulrik wrote:

The widths of Hargis' and Chaney's windshields are about 183 and 191 pixels, respectively. That's a 4.4% difference. Remember that figure.

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...

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:The films contradict the photo, and since the photo wasn't in the hands of the government, it's far more credible evidence.

But you haven't demonstrated any contradiction between the photo and the Z film. All you've done so far is wave your hands.

And you pretend that Chaney was closer, yet refuse to accept that he was where he's clearly seen in the Altgens' print. You somehow believe that he could have been BEHIND the limo bumper, yet still be closer to Altgens.

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:You've lost this argument. Chaney isn't in the position believers keep arguing he is, he's far enough closer to Altgens to make a noticeable difference in size. That's not going to happen if Chaney is 1-2 feet forward of Hargis.



Basic trig has demolished your argument. But feel free to provide your mathematical explanation.

Where did you get 1-2 feet from? In my diagram, he's about 6 feet closer to Altgens. When I count pixels, Hargis is about 7.7% farther away. The 4.4% difference in windshield widths is well within that margin. So, what was that you were saying about Chaney being level with JFK?

I'm guessing that your eyesight has much in common with Patrick, who looks at two weapons and sees just one.

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Yep... Chaney IS closer to Altgens... he's right alongside JFK. That he's closer is admitted by you, and proven by Patrick's admission that Chaney's helmet is larger (and his refusal to address the fairing width)

But Chaney is not right right alongside JFK. Look at my diagram again. You do understand that 4.4% is less than 7.7%, right?

Simply asserting contrary to what the eyes can see, and the measurements confirm, isn't going to do the job, is it?



This is merely one single piece of the multitude of evidence showing that the extant Z-film isn't original. You're desperately trying to chop down one tree in a forest...

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:But this is CONTRADICTED by the extant Z-film... which doesn't show Chaney forward of Hargis - WHICH HE MUST HAVE BEEN (even admitted by you)

You have no concept of perspective. Look at my diagram again.

Ah! I was waiting for the "perspective" argument... I knew it would come sooner or later.



But the truth is, both you and Patrick have admitted that Chaney is closer to Altgens... and this CORROBORATES his position as seen in the Altgens' photo.



And nothing you can say will refute that fact.



P.S. Just for the fun of it, I asked a friend nearby, who knows nothing about my interest in the JFK case, and with no prompting whatsoever, to view the photo, then draw a diagram showing the two limos and three motorcycles. I gave him no information at all... He actually put the limo a few feet forward of where I put it, which is next to JFK. He put it near Connally. You could try the same experiment - if you conduct it honestly, you know it would confirm what I'm saying... don't you? (Rhetorical, I don't expect you to answer...)

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Mon Jul 18, 2016 6:53 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=803#p803

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Then you've lost.



He's right where I've always stated... pretty much even with JFK, within a few feet. It's good that you admit that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chaney to be closer if he's even with Hargis - AS HAS ALWAYS STATED BY BELIEVERS...

1) Feel free to attempt to prove that Chaney is where you think he is.

2) What people keep telling you is that Chaney is behind the limo.

3) I don't care what you think "believers" have always stated. You're having this discussion with me.

The measurements given by Patrick make that point... basic trig makes that point - you've been unable to deny either.

Well, why don't you show me the actual math that proves your so-called point? All you've done so far is wave your hands (and flog your own straw men). You don't have to prove to me that Chaney is closer than Hargis to Altgens. (I know he is.) The question is how much closer.



Are you suggesting that comparing helmet widths is a reliable way of estimating the relative distances to the camera? Doesn't it strike you that the motorcycle windshields might provide a somewhat more reliable measure? Well, I made this composite a while back:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:Of course, he's forward of Hargis. No one ever said he wasn't.

Then you've lost.



He's right where I've always stated... pretty much even with JFK, within a few feet. It's good that you admit that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chaney to be closer if he's even with Hargis - AS HAS ALWAYS STATED BY BELIEVERS...

1) Feel free to attempt to prove that Chaney is where you think he is.

2) What people keep telling you is that Chaney is behind the limo.

3) I don't care what you think "believers" have always stated. You're having this discussion with me.

The measurements given by Patrick make that point... basic trig makes that point - you've been unable to deny either.



The films contradict the photo, and since the photo wasn't in the hands of the government, it's far more credible evidence.



You've lost this argument. Chaney isn't in the position believers keep arguing he is, he's far enough closer to Altgens to make a noticeable difference in size. That's not going to happen if Chaney is 1-2 feet forward of Hargis.



Basic trig has demolished your argument. But feel free to provide your mathematical explanation.

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:There are many problems with your diagram, but thank you for at least trying. The cars, for example, are too big and in the wrong places. Here's a much better attempt by yours truly. (Notice the orange circle with Altgens in the centre.)



altgens6.jpg

The diagram I gave proved my point - which explains why you're backing off of your claim.

I'm not backing off of anything. You're simply flogging your own straw man. My diagram shows that Chaney can, at the same time, be behind the limo and closer to Altgens than Hargis was.

Yep... Chaney IS closer to Altgens... he's right alongside JFK. That he's closer is admitted by you, and proven by Patrick's admission that Chaney's helmet is larger (and his refusal to address the fairing width)



But this is CONTRADICTED by the extant Z-film... which doesn't show Chaney forward of Hargis - WHICH HE MUST HAVE BEEN (even admitted by you)

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:47 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=801#p801