SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Sure…..
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1694972061

Message started by WebsterMark on 09/17/23 at 10:34:21

Title: Sure…..
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/23 at 10:34:21

We have 10 minutes of detailed, up close, night vision video of Lauren Boebert out on the town in a crowded pubic auditorium, but we don’t know who left cocaine in the White House?

And after seeing that video, yes, I would.

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by thumperclone on 09/17/23 at 13:15:21

pretty sure the coke wasn't Bobberts'

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by Eegore on 09/17/23 at 14:28:14

We have 10 minutes of detailed, up close, night vision video of Lauren Boebert out on the town in a crowded pubic auditorium, but we don’t know who left cocaine in the White House?

We have detailed, up close, night vision video in a totally different non-government location than the White House. If they were uniformed establishments with minimum requirements for surveillance I would expect similarities. I think when people expect the government to have state of the art everything, everywhere, maybe they have been watching too many movies.

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by Serowbot on 09/17/23 at 14:37:52

From what I read, the cocaine was in a packet the size of a fingernail.
Not so easy to spot or track
I don't remember the source.

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/23 at 16:23:51

4464666E7364010 wrote:

It’s the White House, it’s not some obscure government building. They know.

As far as Boebert, I’ve read she should resign, but it’s not like she got drunk, drove off a bridge, left her companion to drown, not call the police until the next morning, fake an injury, wear a brace, and then…..run for President….

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by Eegore on 09/17/23 at 21:03:54

It’s the White House, it’s not some obscure government building. They know.

This is what I mean. I've been in plenty of Government facilities, they aren't all secured with a camera at every angle with hundreds of staff watching each camera 24/7. Even, that's right, the White house.

Had they been able to identify in real-time who dropped that tiny package in that specific area I would have been amazed. It's like we want to call the Government a bunch of bufoons that can't do much right, then we also want to claim they do everything right when it comes to something we want to be true.

Maybe they know. I would be very surprised if they could even see that small of a package on those cameras. Enhance. Enhance.

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/23 at 04:13:31

I don’t believe every area in the White House is not under 24/7 surveillance. Sure, the residence is not. They’re lying. But whatever, I really don’t care about that, I was just making a point about calls for the congresswoman from Colorado should resign which I think is ridiculous getting the Democrats love a murderer oh, and let’s not forget about the KKK Grand Pooh Bah, or whatever he was.

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by thumperclone on 09/18/23 at 06:37:49

the nut job congresswoman from my district does need to be replaced has been long before this

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by Serowbot on 09/18/23 at 06:51:52

Worst of all.... her date was a Democrat

PS I would motorboat that :-*

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by thumperclone on 09/18/23 at 07:38:55

133331392433560 wrote:

the venue is owned by the city of Denver

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/18/23 at 17:44:19

Watching them miss the point, again. Whatever it takes, boys,,

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by Eegore on 09/18/23 at 17:52:23

the venue is owned by the city of Denver

Agreed. I don't expect private theatre venues to have the same surveillance methods, for the same reasons, as the White House. Comparison here is just for show, not substance, the theatre cameras wouldn't show a tiny package like that being dropped in the coat check area. It all just depends on how you want to compare.

Ideally the WH "should" have state of the art everything everywhere all the time, but reality is cameras detailing the dropping of a tiny package in a cubby is just not priority. I notice that the government buffoons' running the operation all the sudden become elite when it's convenient for people to say they know everything. Somehow they are all idiots and geniuses at the same time.

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by Eegore on 09/18/23 at 17:54:25

Watching them miss the point, again. Whatever it takes, boys,,

What good is the "point" when it is supported with inaccurate information and speculation? Just toss out anything then when it is challenged for accuracy just claim they are missing the "point". Convenient.

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/18/23 at 18:21:15

Pretend some more. Act like Where the coke was isn't under surveillance, Because You Know not Every INCH is under surveillance.
Act like Since you can pretend That is true, then the Fact that she just Happened to be In Center Frame isn't something to wonder about.
Should she have done that? NOT the Point.

Title: Re: Sure…..
Post by Eegore on 09/18/23 at 18:46:13

Pretend some more. Act like Where the coke was isn't under surveillance, Because You Know not Every INCH is under surveillance.

Go ahead and Pretend you know for a fact it was seen on camera. How would you know that exactly? Oh wait, no proof needed when its just for a "point", you can claim anything then. I'm saying the evidence that we can actually see, leaves a 50/50 chance because I have no emotional investment in this.

Act like Since you can pretend That is true, then the Fact that she just Happened to be In Center Frame isn't something to wonder about.

Its a cut in. The overall footage is of a larger area, clearly shown, and then the zoomed in footage is with her in center frame. I don't need to wonder, it makes complete sense that if footage is zoomed in through cut-in/cropping that they would put the subject matter in center frame.

Lets Pretend the camera was placed only to look at that one spot: Security is watching humans in the audience where complaints are taking place. Should they zoom in?

Security is a heterosexual male and wanted to zoom in on a female politician in that outfit. Would he zoom in?

Should she have done that? NOT the Point.

I agree. None of my conversation is about her, however this may not be Observed. My conversation is about cameras, camera quality, locations, staff monitoring, and how people "know" things without any evidence simply because they want it to be true.

The government is a bunch of idiots until we want them to do everything right, then all the sudden they are on top of things and are experts at covering things up.