I like Shiva, the Destroyer. Also the one with all the arms. And the one that looks like an elephant.Originally Posted by Laava
"channellling the Pleideans"
I like Shiva, the Destroyer. Also the one with all the arms. And the one that looks like an elephant.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Well, hold up - I am looking at the great deceptions of WW2 as my baseline - and they all had one thing in common: Believability.
Look at all the failings that the SS did on that day - pick any one of them - and I would believe it to be an oversight. Pick any two of them and I would go that is pretty bad - but all the mistakes together?
Either it is was a master stroke of 4D chess to make the SS look so utterly incompetent that it would rise above suspicion, because even a deliberate collusion attempt couldn't be that bad...
Or the SS really did drop the ball that hard.
And if I am honest, the latter is a pretty hard pill to swallow on its own merits.
When would I ever nitpick you further...
The big issue for me though is the ballistics - too much risk downrange of something going pear shaped. Expert shot or not, there is too much risk of a ricochet or shrapnel or other thing hitting Trump and causing serious injury if it was staged.
A rather long winded way of politely declining the challenge.
I have read a few of Thomas judgements on the Constitution - I highly recommend them, the man has got some impressive insight and intellect.
He seems steadfast in his originalist approach to the constitution - even on decisions where I might otherwise disagree from a practicality stand-point, even on decisions where I would be happy for the Law to remain in place.
When it comes to the Constitution as written and as it was intended, it was to limit the power of the Federal Government - such freedom will almost always benefit those with power and money.
To put it another way, Imagine the worlds fattest man going to town at the worlds most delicious all-you-can-eat buffet. Someone comes along and drops them a $100 bill to them. You then see that and say "He is bribing the fat man to overeat!".
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Anorak
Well at least two if not three of those gods are the almighty dollaroo.....
All Heil sky pixie almighty Dollaroo......
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Weekend cruiser
Another wall of text....do you ever look at what you write?Concede a point - what point is it you are trying to get me to concede?
Let us play this out to its logical conclusion:
If his ear was miraculously healed, the implication is that it was not shot.
If you are implying it was not shot, then you are implying that the blood was not real.
If you are implying the blood was not real, then you are implying that it was staged.
If you are implying it was staged, then you are saying the entire event was a Hoax.
So let us skip the middle men: are you saying it was an elaborate hoax?
As for the ear - The ear is just thin skin, it bleeds a hell of a lot: example - but pretty easy for a skilled plastic surgeon to stitch up, healing time for ears is pretty quick too:
NZ Website about Ear Plastic Surgery
Didn't you say a piece of his ear was shot off by an assasin?
Can we agree on that?
I am reminded of that old quote, " A fool is so sure of themselves but a wise man continually questions"
Now TDL if you want to reply to me please keep it short and simple....and go look at what you said/wrote about trumpz ear.
Geriatric hoon
Interesting that elected but still to be inaugurated President Trump already has cropping farmers panicking. Most of them probably voted for him and his plans to get rid of illegal immigrants but now they are claiming they will need exemptions. It has belatedly occurred to them that they will have nobody to harvest their produce. Perhaps this is natures way of telling them they are too thick to be farmers.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
The Majestic Metal Wizard
I did say a piece of his ear was shot off by an assassin.
If you are disputing that, then that requires a chain of beliefs - that culiminate in one end conclusion: If you do not believe that it was a bullet (or as per Pritch, fragments of the bullet or glass or shrapnel) that clipped Trumps ear, then you must believe it was somehow staged or faked.
So is that your position?
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Anorak
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Geriatric hoon
A truly significant moment. Prepare for many more alternative facts.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
Anorak
I'd suggest captain bone spurs will be out to settle some scores with those that were doing their jobs rather than his bidding last time around.
It will also be interesting to see What position MTG gets. head of conspiracies or On all fours? downward Dog?
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Kiwibiker
I'm starting to believe it myself
I don't know guns, but I'm quite sure that surely ballistics can be tinkered with that bullet velocity can be made significantly slower, de-powered if you like.
Now onto "that" photo. Because photography is something I know a bunch about, and to capture a bullet in a photo while holding the camera in the hands rather than a tripod - the photographer would have to crank the ISO up sky high. Now I've seen the photo of the photographer (released by the photographer that took the iconic photo - must have been his mates photo or sumthin) taking photos at the same time as the actual photo was taken. Now knowing the camera he is using, the flagship Sony A9. That is a heavy camera, and at the angle he is shooting, with his arms outstretched like that - he absolutely simply must have the ISO cranked up very high indeed.
The trade off with using high ISO is the grain it introduces to the photo. Check out the photo below, don't mistake trump as being grainy, he's not, he is simply out of focus, it looks like the photographer is using a lens with a shallow depth of field (backed up after the exif data was released below). The part of the photo to actually look at is the in focus trump sign on the podium. That sign at high ISO would look like a grainy mess, especially the expansive blue area of the sign. If I had to guess, looking at the light conditions, the amount of the grain - I would say the photographer was shooting in the ISO range of 600 to 800 - which unless the photographer has the strength of the hulk and the steadiness of a gold winning Olympic pistol shooter, is nigh on impossible shooting hand held at the angles seen above to capture "that shot".
OK, I just found a very balanced article about this photo at the following link https://haje.medium.com/theres-a-pro...p-333dc1eeda1a frustratingly i had to set up a free account to read it. It is very photo geeky so will understand if you are not keen to read it. The nutshell version is, the photographers camera and most settings are compatible with capturing such a photo. The photographer released the EXIF ( metadata). There was one part of the EXIF data the photographer went out of his way to remove - you probably have guessed - yep, the ISO setting. And I only just found this fact out after i wrote the above. (btw, even if a camera ISO is set to automatic, it still gets reported in the EXIF data)
The Author of the article said thus "Oddly, the one piece of the exposure triangle that Doug Mills is not reporting here is the ISO speed. It makes no difference to our calculations, but it seems like a curious omission. Given he was shooting in ‘pattern exposure mod, it’s possible that he was shooting with a fixed shutter speed and aperture, and an automatic ISO, but that seems unlikely. No big deal, but a curiosity nonetheless." And before you break out the party hats and highlight the "no big deal" part. In terms of the bullet being captured in the photo - I agree. However, I think the article author was entirely focusing on the bullet, and not that the sign has no meaningful grain. And before you may mention grain can be removed in post photo processing - grain is the one thing that is notoriously difficult, and nigh on possible to completely remove. Many a pro photographer, nay I would wager every professional photographer has tearfully consigned what would of been a world class photo were it not for the grain to the eternal photography dustbin of failure. So - Why would a photographer remove the ISO from the EXIF data? Because it would introduce a fundamental flaw that brings it's authenticity into question - that's why.
As an aside, something I never mentioned was when my wife (who has a background in health/medicine) saw the photo, the very first thing she said was "No way does a unfit overweight man have blood that brighter shade red, it would be a lot darker than that for sure." Sure, not proof on it's own sure, but yet another huh????? when it comes to this "assassination attempt". The reason I had not mentioned trumps suspiciously red blood before, was I was concerned it would send kb's conjoined twins off to the bathroom, tissues in hand at the very mention of a red blooded trump)
Hilariously for me, while I did think that was odd, I eventually settled on the official version sounding about right - until you started bringing it up on KB and I thought I would initially have a bit of fun by listing out my imaginary scenario. But with this research I've been doing, it just has too many holes in it now for me to keep believing the official version! My scenario is certainly more feasible than thomas taking millions in undeclared bribes - yet somehow not being corrupt
OK, Lets say I accept your assertion that thomas ruled correctly in every single case, you did not take the time to acknowledge corruption with a man of his power and influence can be had with other judges that may effect cases of thomases implausibly generous millionaire benefactor. thomas immediately stepped into my corruption pool by accepting undeclared millions. It ends there. A tdl post that reaches the moon is not going to change that.
I get that you greatly admire him, and accepting he is the bestest supreme court judge when it comes to rulings ever, the unfortunate fact that he chose to take a big fat shit on his legacy by taking the money is genuinely a real shame.
OK, putting aside the fact that there is a person of power out there that you consider to be even more anally retentive than yourself scares me - because he chose to go down corruption lane, justice thomas is like that bright red tomato in the veges isle at the supermarket that when you pick it up and turn it over is disappointingly, rotten to the core on the other side. Again, what a shame.
Forum whore
What's the story on the guy who actually got shot and died? There's some serious questions to be answered here if they planned to kill someone in the crowd (when I say 'planned'' I mean they must've figured there was a probability someone would get hit).
The Majestic Metal Wizard
So, I think there are a number of things here to address - IIRC on the video clips of the incident, you can clearly hear the Rifle Crack - which means the bullets were still supersonic. However, that is not what I meant. When I am talking Ballistics, I am not so much talking about the speed of the Bullet - I am talking about the inherent accuracy or innaccuracy of firearm.
The absolute *best* rifles have around a 0.15 MOA (Minute of Angle), 1 MOA is 1 Inch at 100 yards. The shot distance was 164 Yards. Bearing in mind that is with match-grade ammo or handloaded ammo. If we remove all the human factors, that means for the absolute best rifle - at that distance the bullet could be anywhere within about a quarter of an inch circle.
But we aren't talking a high-end bolt action precision rifle, we are talking a 20 year old DPMS AR-15, which is probably around 1 MOA - which means, again, if we have the best quality ammo, a round at that distance could hit anywhere within an inch and a half.
With store-bought el-cheapo Ammo, it is probably closer to 2 MOA.
This means, without any other factors (Wind, going through glass etc.) the bullet could go anywhere in that 1.5 inch circle. I want you to mentally draw a circle of that size, put the centre of it on your ear.
This is the part I mean by Ballistics - would you trust the worlds best shot to take that shot, knowing the the best mechanical accuracy of the Rifle and the Ammunition could land a round anywhere in that circle?
Then if we consider Pritch's view that it went through Glass - the deflection off the glass can be rather random
So, I know very little about Photography - so I will say - that is all very interesting and I will take your word that the things that are suspicious, are indeed suspicious.
Is Trump actually unfit though? I mean he's got a belly, but he could be an Iron Marshmallow - seems to do alright on Golf... As a question for your better half - is it possible that Trump is on some medication that would have had an effect on the color of his Blood. I also imagine being on stage delivering a speech to the crowd would be quite the uplifting experience and I dare say getting shot would get the heart pumping a lot.
For me the real key is the incompetence of the Secret Service - no one who was planning a believable inside-job would have made them look that stupid.Hilariously for me, while I did think that was odd, I eventually settled on the official version sounding about right - until you started bringing it up on KB and I thought I would initially have a bit of fun by listing out my imaginary scenario. But with this research I've been doing, it just has too many holes in it now for me to keep believing the official version! My scenario is certainly more feasible than thomas taking millions in undeclared bribes - yet somehow not being corrupt
It is a fair challenge - but I want to ask this:
Lets say I am suddenly a Billionaire and decide to take Clarence out and buy him a Beer - is that corruption? I think we all agree not.
Lets say I up the ante, buy him dinner - is that Corruption?
Lets say it is a really nice dinner at a really fancy restaurant - are we there yet?
Lets say I take him on a hunting trip, the cost to me as a Billionaire is about the equivalent of lending one of your mates $20 - is that Corruption?
Suppose I agree with your premise for the sake of Charity - we have to accept that there is a line somewhere that goes from not corruption, to corruption: Does that line shift with the wealth of the individual. Something to you and I that would be a life-changing expense and a one-off experience to a Billionaire would be the equivalent of $5 and a packet of crisps - does the fact that it is hundreds of thousands of dollars change the fact to the person paying it is chump-change?
Which is to arrive at my point, if we take a strict view (such that you are proposing) that a Judge can't have rich friends - something I feel is absurd.
And the reason I ask for a ruling is because therein lies the real issue, putting aside the mock-horror by people who simply don't like him because he rules against their ideology - if, in all this furor and scrutiny and outrage, there was a case where it was pretty clear he had ruled against the constitution in favor of a Doner - it would be front and centre in every lefty-outlet from here to the moon.
But no such article surfaced
Even left-leaning Legal experts have conceded that Thomas is consistent in how he interprets and applies the constitution. That is to say: What did the people in 1787 mean when they said X. Not what people today would wish it to mean. The fact that he has some high-roller pals who take him on trips is, to me, incidental.
Your strict view is admirable - that once a single gold coin passes from hand to hand the recipient cannot be trusted, however for me - I need to see Action. And in my view, Thomas would rule the same way if I gave him a single dollar or a Billion dollars on an issue.
But when it comes to matters of Supreme Court rulings, you need that level of Retentiveness. Freedoms and rights are beset on all-sides by people with good intentions who sincerely believe that if they could break the rules just once, it would be worth it.
If there is a need for legislative change, is needs to come from the Legislature, not interpreted from the Judiciary.
As a prime example - the Treaty principles bill is a *classic* example where there is a set of vague and unwritten principles that have been subject to Judicial Activism - now the Legislature is trying to clarify this because of the problem(s) caused by said activism.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Weekend cruiser
Great that you acknowledged that....now we need to discuss how it grew back so quickly.I did say a piece of his ear was shot off by an assassin.
Kruger-Dunning Parts n Service
Medical insurance and living in the land of silicon titties. Ear is mostly gristle. Bit of selleys no more gaps and some make up dusting job done. You can prob buy a kit off amazon.
“Have you just survived a driveby shooting but need to patch yourself up? Can’t access health system due to outstanding warrants? Our home ear repair kit is just for you”
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket - Eric Hoffer
The Majestic Metal Wizard
I already did - did you miss the part where I pointed to an ear plastic surgeon and their timelines for healing and how it almost exactly lined up with Trump?
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks