Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Nah... I actually passed my basic trigonometry classes...







How well do you remember your triangle formulas? As this is a scalene triangle, by definition the two distances from Altgens to the motorcycle cops cannot be equal.



Nor can Chaney's distance be shorter - UNLESS HE'S FORWARD OF HARGIS, which, of course, is precisely where he is.



Now, feel free to do the math, and show me how it's mathematically possible for Chaney to be closer to Altgens when you presume that Chaney & Hargis are even with each other,

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.

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.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:07 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=799#p799

Patrick C wrote:

Fine post Mark,

Thanks Patrick.

Patrick C wrote:

Fine post Mark,

Ben will no doubt struggle with that one ....unless he puts on his pro conspiracy sun glasses which block out more logic than UV rays.....

Heh. I think we both know the answer.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:27 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=798#p798

Patrick C wrote:

Tripe, most people though there were 2 or 3 shots from the rear. I cannot see how you can dispute that. Are you living in cloud cuckoo land Ben...?

I dispute it because unlike you, I'M WILLING TO BACK UP WHAT I SAY WITH THE EVIDENCE.



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.



P.S. You still refuse to name the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray... It's amusing to see how believers suddenly take their cue from monkeys when this topic comes around:

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:If you cannot refute the evidence they bring to the table, then you've lost, haven't you?

Not at all, I simply do not have the time or inclination.



Do you not realise you are supporting UTTER NUT JOBS here Ben...? I mean come on.......

You NEVER seem to have the "time or inclination" when it's the evidence in this case... evidence you can't explain...



So yes, you HAVE lost... for if you cannot defend the Warren Commission ... and YOUR beliefs against cross examination, then you can't do what critics ROUTINELY do...



Can you cite ANY QUESTION on the evidence in this case that I've not answered??



Why can't you do the same???



So yes, Patrick... you've lost. All you represent now is the fact that time and time again you refuse to make a case refuting what I've stated about the evidence.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:27 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=796#p796

Patrick C wrote:

"Not at all, I simply do not have the time or inclination."

Enough of this "I don't have the time" crap, Collins. No one is buying such an excuse from the second-most prolific poster here, who practically spends more time here than the Administrator.



There is not a doubt in my mind the limo slowed to a stop or near stop. This has been corroborated by more than enough witnesses. But to play devil's advocate, perhaps one reason we don't see such an obvious slowdown in the extant Z-film is because of the frame rate in which it was filmed. Sometimes old amateur films played back faster than the real-time counterpart:



https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... m_sped_up/

Statistics: Posted by Nick Principe — Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:09 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=795#p795

Tripe, most people though there were 2 or 3 shots from the rear. I cannot see how you can dispute that. Are you living in cloud cuckoo land Ben...?

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:25 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=794#p794

"If you cannot refute the evidence they bring to the table, then you've lost, haven't you?"



Not at all, I simply do not have the time or inclination.



Do you not realise you are supporting UTTER NUT JOBS here Ben...? I mean come on.......

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:23 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=793#p793

Patrick C wrote:

The only bangs that day came from inside the TSBD, the question is....were there two or three....and that as far as I am concerned is the mystery....

Unfortunately, that puts you contrary to many, if not most witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza that day...



I think that they are more credible...

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:15 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=87&p=792#p792

Patrick C wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:Anyone interested in the topic would do well to get these two books:



The Great Zapruder Film Hoax - Deceit & Deception in the Death of JFK

The Hoax of the Century - Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film

You are recommending Fetzer and Livingstone......!!!



Are you serious........!!!



Dear oh dear oh dear.......

Since you refuse to address the points they raise, no wonder you think an ad hominem attack on those authors is preferable to dealing with the evidence.



If you cannot refute the evidence they bring to the table, then you've lost, haven't you?

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:10 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=94&p=791#p791

Mark Ulrik wrote:

Ben Holmes wrote:

Mark Ulrik wrote:That (a) Chaney is the motorcycle cop closest to Altgens' camera lens, and that (b) he is behind the presidential limo, are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's extremely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Nah... I actually passed my basic trigonometry classes...







How well do you remember your triangle formulas? As this is a scalene triangle, by definition the two distances from Altgens to the motorcycle cops cannot be equal.



Nor can Chaney's distance be shorter - UNLESS HE'S FORWARD OF HARGIS, which, of course, is precisely where he is.



Now, feel free to do the math, and show me how it's mathematically possible for Chaney to be closer to Altgens when you presume that Chaney & Hargis are even with each other,

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...

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.

Statistics: Posted by Ben Holmes — Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:05 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=790#p790