|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Interesting /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1721526573 Message started by MnSpring on 07/20/24 at 18:49:33 |
|
Title: Interesting Post by MnSpring on 07/20/24 at 18:49:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LouUbMYb7Bc Interesting info. (Yea ya gotta go through the ads)_ Good/Bad Believable/Not RECENT past. JFK & MM ? Teddy driving drunk ? The grassy knoll ? JFK Jr, not knowing how to fly a airplane ? “Arkancide” ? Interesting Info !!!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 07/20/24 at 20:27:24 I don't agree with the logic that a larger caliber round would be used. How much sense would it make for another sniper being used to frame this kid to use a totally different ammunition type? The cell phone audio is compelling, but having heard tons and tons of those videos I can say they are very inconsistent. The noise cancelling alone has made multiple shots, made by me, sound like they are from two totally different firearms. IF we had good audio from Trump's perspective that would be ideal. Also, if there is a second shooter, why the hell would they be right in naked-eye view of all those humans there? Logic would say to put the second shooter in a considerably more concealed position than what is proposed here. I get the idea of two shooters, two similar if not identical ammo/weapon types, but why in plain view? And no I don't think the "everyone is too stupid to figure it out" logic is sound. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Graybeard on 07/21/24 at 01:16:45 A study of the video showing where Trump is looking, which way his nose is pointed, and a line drawn from his ear,shows where the bullet came from. But that won't happen. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 07/21/24 at 05:33:48 The problem with that is the human head is not 90 edge and the ear protrudes. The nose-point method assumes Trump is looking directly at the shooter at the exact time the shot is fired, but he could be looking as far as 10 or more degrees to either side and still have his ear hit. A one degree difference at the point of impact can be hundreds of feet apart at distance. It's a proven science used for centuries by sailors, and today by pilots, snipers, even cake decorators, but acknowledging that won't happen. I still don't think a second shooter would be placed in plain view on a roof like the video calculates with hundreds of people around that can see it. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Graybeard on 07/21/24 at 06:41:03 Where the nose is pointed does it. When the nose is where it was when The Bullet hit, the line on the ear From the bullet, points to where the bullet came from. One degree, blahh,blahh,blahh,, IF there was more than one shooter and IF they weren't in each other's pocket, then,, finish it yourself. Why don't ya make a few calls and see if Columbo would give that a go? It could prove nothing, if it's aimed at Dead Crooks,, but if it's Not,, well now.. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 07/21/24 at 07:12:32 One degree, blahh,blahh,blahh,, IF there was more than one shooter and IF they weren't in each other's pocket, then,, finish it yourself. Yeah like I said, acknowledging basic math isn't going to happen. You can't tell the exact location of a shooter based off the human nose because the ear can be hit from multiple angles, even from the front, as it protrudes from the head. Angles increase in degree with distance. At what angle was his ear shot? Was it exactly 90 degrees? How can the human nose prove that? The problem here is there are only a few vantage points in that area to make that shot and the video available doesn't give a good enough indication of primary position at point of contact. If anything the point of impact behind Trump COMBINED with another exact point of reference is needed to "draw a line" to a location. A single end point is guesswork at best. Millions of humans are watching the videos of the shooting and one guy on a motorcycle forum figured it out. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by verslagen1 on 07/21/24 at 10:42:06 Here's another analysis from a guy that did a lot on the bridge collapse... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7PdhHC2zr0 |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Graybeard on 07/22/24 at 17:08:37 Twenty minutes,, inexcusable. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 07/23/24 at 22:00:33 20 minutes is extremely long. Why is the phone footage of him moving up the roof so much closer to the shooting time? So I asked 6 ballistic analysts their opinion in regard to measuring Trumps nose position to point to the shooter's location. 2 have responded but only one wasn't telling me to lay off the CSI re-runs and that ballistics don't work like that: You are asking for a conclusive mathematical outcome with one number. 2+(unknown number) = (exact number). This is not possible. Even if there were video clean enough to see where his nose "pointed" at the during the impact, the spread would overlay all 3 available planes of possible fire. This prioritizes rooftops. There is a near-zero possibility of using Trump's or anyone's nose to precisely calculate the trajectory of a ballistic round even if we remove altitude in the equation. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Graybeard on 07/24/24 at 06:39:34 So You say. Any honest attempt at figuring this out would include a reenactment with every bullet strike and injured person position studied. The number of Oopsies,, just a little oversight,, we should have done better events is staggering. I say ,done right, the Nose points to the shooter ,the size of the strike zone in baseball. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 07/24/24 at 08:16:30 So You say. No, ballistics experts that have done the job for decades say this. Any honest attempt at figuring this out would include a reenactment with every bullet strike and injured person position studied. The number of Oopsies,, just a little oversight,, we should have done better events is staggering. I agree. I think however they should use proven methods and actual math. I say ,done right, the Nose points to the shooter ,the size of the strike zone in baseball. Provide more detail. Everyone that your proposal has been shown to says you can't draw a line to a target by using one point of reference, especially from a human nose due to the shape and distance from the actual point of impact, the ear. Also, in another more detailed response it was questioned what geometry you are using to align altitude? This person stated the exact same thing I did: How are the angular variations from ear to nose being calculated to eliminate increasing degrees at distance? The ear is impacted at 1 degree from a 1-1 parallel from the "tip" of the nose and you get 18.3 feet separation at 100 yards. How many degrees of angular impact on the ear, measured from 1-1 parallel from the "tip" of the nose are we to calculate? |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Serowbot on 07/24/24 at 11:40:02 Trump's nose would point to the jumbotron with the chart he was describing If he had been looking at the shooter, he'd have ducked a bit sooner ;D |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 07/24/24 at 19:31:17 There are indeed some angular issues with a rooftop fire, but the upward angles are so tight the second shooter would have been right there in the crowd. The second shooter is claimed to be on the next rooftop, in plain view, so his shot could not have hit the higher impact points either. So there had to be 3 shooters. 2 on the rooftops, and one that shot from the ground, in front of the crowd. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Serowbot on 07/25/24 at 06:32:23 We're entering JFK territory here,... the whodunnit where everybody dunnit :P |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by MnSpring on 07/25/24 at 10:37:25 7E687F627A6F62790D0 wrote:
A-yep entering the ‘Twilight Zone’ ! Grassy Knoll - Drunk driving over a bridge - Flying a airplane into the Ocean - Suicide by two gun shots to the back of the head - The Trump shooting, something we will never know, cause the shooter is dead. Interesting, (some would even say it is Proof of the UL, ‘told what to say’ Socialistic Media) A report (web Media) said the gun used by the shooter, ‘MAY’ have had a collapsible stock, ‘BECAUSE’ it could be concealed easier’. Would that, be an absolute, considering, the shooter was shot dead ? Was the shooters gun next to him ? Did someone pick it up ? |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 07/25/24 at 16:17:12 A report (web Media) said the gun used by the shooter, ‘MAY’ have had a collapsible stock, ‘BECAUSE’ it could be concealed easier’. I saw one of those that said Trump is a CGI double and was killed in Gitmo at the beginning of his last term. Interesting what web media reports. I was looking at the potential lines of fire from those windows, but I can't see how they would hit Trump and also hit the corner of the far stands. The windows did seem plausible, given multiple "reports" say people saw gunfire coming from them. Stupid of them to use weapons with muzzle flash if that's the case. Almost as stupid as a second shooter in plain sight in the middle of another roof. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Graybeard on 07/25/24 at 23:43:03 The audio analysis, if it's not been dikkt with, proves a second gunman was firing. Then a third,one shot report,, at the end,that took crooks out. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 07/25/24 at 23:54:00 I have cellphone footage of myself shooting on a range, the only one firing, that sounds distinctly like 2 different people are shooting. Cellphones are garbage for audio analysis, they have noise cancelling, directional mics, decibel mitigation and such so the calls are clearer. All this is what makes it possible to talk, and be heard by the other human, without your mouth facing into the mic. In the range video, of me, the phone faces the targets, I start shooting, and the human recording turns the phone 80 or so degrees to face me so they can see what I am shooting. The sound of the shots fired before the camera faces me are distinctly different, so much that I said I didn't recall anyone else on the fire line. Nobody else was on the line. That's just how cellphone recordings can sound. So I would say it's not "proof", but is evidence that should be examined. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 08/15/24 at 07:55:13 There is further questioning in regard to measuring from Trump's nose to point at a shooter: What are the exact internal dimensions of the strike zone in baseball? We can field test this but we need the dimensions of that target size. A line trajectory analysis can't be done from the tip of anything so will boring a hole through the head from the anterior centerline protrusion of the Pronasalae between the Supratrip Breakpoint medial line to the Supratrip Lubule and the Culumella. Bore line direct to ventral Neuhal Ridge. So yet another analysis saying basic math won't allow one to draw a line to an unknown location using one point of reference but what do we know? However an initial field test will give us information as long as the team can get the strike zone dimensions. After this I will have 6 additional tests done from 6 teams that do not know each other, 3 will be given specifics about what this is in reference to and 3 will be done overseas with only dimensions given and no information stating it relates to Trump or any ballistics. Those will be presented as a simple laser survey line analysis. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by MnSpring on 08/15/24 at 10:22:33 0020222A3720450 wrote:
“… The velocity required to propel with expanding gas, will depend on the diameter, and the length of the object the piece is to exit from. In other words, the FPS is relative to the FPE required to cause the ejected item to exit from a certain diameter…” There are lots and lots of people that know exactly what the above means. “…What are the exact internal dimensions of the strike zone in baseball? We can field test this but we need the dimensions of that target size. A line trajectory analysis can't be done from the tip of anything so will boring a hole through the head from the anterior centerline protrusion of the Pronasalae between the Supratrip Breakpoint medial line to the Supratrip Lubule and the Culumella. Bore line direct to ventral Neuhal Ridge…” There are significantly LESS people that know what the above means. You chose to simply use the description sent to you, and made no effort to explainin what; Pronasalae, Supratrip, Lubule, Culumella, Neuhal, mean. “… However an initial field test will give us information as long as the team can get the strike zone dimensions. After this I will have 6 additional tests done from 6 teams that do not know each other, 3 will be given specifics about what this is in reference to and 3 will be done overseas with only dimensions given and no information stating it relates to Trump or any ballistics. Those will be presented as a simple laser survey line analysis…” 6 tests, 3 knowing details, 3 not knowing details, and in two different Nations ? (A Prostitute and Statistics. Once you lay down Statistics, you can do anything you want to do) 3 will be given specifics about what this is in reference to. (And live in the USA, confirmed by stating the other 3 being OVERSEAS) If one wants Credibility 9 would be better, Each one of each 3. 1 - in the 10% center, 1 - a Trump supporter, 1 - a Harris supporter. Then, one set of the above 3. (All in the Country that results would be meaningful in) One set in a ’neutral’ State. 1, in the country. 1, in a 20-40 Thousand population. 1 in 100 thousand + city. One in a Red State. 1, in the country. 1, in a 20-40 Thousand population. 1 in 100 thousand + city. One in a Blue State. 1, in the country. 1, in a 20-40 Thousand population. 1 in 100 thousand + city. Above would be bare bones. One could add, color of skin, living conditions, heritage, religion, language, income level, and on and on. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 08/15/24 at 11:52:47 There are significantly LESS people that know what the above means. You chose to simply use the description sent to you, and made no effort to explainin what; Pronasalae, Supratrip, Lubule, Culumella, Neuhal, mean. The question is: What are the dimensions of a baseball strike zone? If you need clarity as to how a hole will be drilled into a mannequin head I can have it provided, if you think knowing more about the hole will help figure out the dimensions of a baseball strike zone as interpreted in this thread. 6 tests, 3 knowing details, 3 not knowing details, and in two different Nations ? (A Prostitute and Statistics. Once you lay down Statistics, you can do anything you want to do) Great. I won't accept a single test since I can not create an average with one test. I want 6, the evaluating crew wants 6. We will do 6, and no prostitutes will be needed. If one wants Credibility 9 would be better, Each one of each 3. 1 - in the 10% center, 1 - a Trump supporter, 1 - a Harris supporter. That's plausible however it ignores blind input where the testing is done by humans that have zero knowledge of what it represents. So 12 would be even better. Then, one set of the above 3. (All in the Country that results would be meaningful in) One set in a ’neutral’ State. 1, in the country. 1, in a 20-40 Thousand population. 1 in 100 thousand + city. One in a Red State. 1, in the country. 1, in a 20-40 Thousand population. 1 in 100 thousand + city. One in a Blue State. 1, in the country. 1, in a 20-40 Thousand population. 1 in 100 thousand + city. Above would be bare bones. What does population volume impact the testing of laser movement at range specific to this exact test? Why would the testing need to be done within those city limits, versus using humans from populations of those volumes outside the city limit? One could add, color of skin, living conditions, heritage, religion, language, income level, and on and on. One could but how does religion impact the evaluation of laser movement at range? This appears to be nothing more than a poor attempt to ridicule the use of testing teams outside of the US. The only reason external testing is done is to ensure blind input is entered into the overall evaluation - a requirement to retrieve more accurate information. |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by MnSpring on 08/15/24 at 13:09:46 527270786572170 wrote:
"... 3 will be given specifics about what this is in reference to ..." Those 3, do they hate or love; Kamala/Trump/Baseball/Left/Right/and on ........ It is well known that Large Cities are mostly Blue, and the smaller they get, more Red they are. "...specifics about what this is in reference..." Do you really think that WHO, was shot, would have absolutely no bearing ? "... nothing more than a poor attempt to ridicule .." So you say. LOL "... The only reason external testing is done is to ensure blind input is entered into the overall evaluation ..." Another reason is: Things/Work, done overseas cost less money. Quick question, is, in this case, "...overseas..." the same as, "...external..." ? Reference; "... and 3 will be done overseas ..." |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 08/15/24 at 14:13:04 Those 3, do they hate or love; Kamala/Trump/Baseball/Left/Right/and on ........ It is well known that Large Cities are mostly Blue, and the smaller they get, more Red they are. What does an opinion on baseball have to do with measuring the travel of a laser? Does a human that likes baseball measure distance different than a human that does not like baseball? I see that population volume is to statistically influence each teams political affiliation. Since statistics are equal to prostitution per your assessment then none of those volumes will be of value. If they were, how can each team be considered to be of any political affiliation based off the location of the test alone? Isn't it plausible that a team conducting the test in a "Red" town could have "Blue" humans running it? If a team conducts a test inside city limits, step 10 feet outside city limits and conducts the same test, should we expect different measurements? Do you really think that WHO, was shot, would have absolutely no bearing ? It can, thus the reason for blind testing teams. Another reason is: Things/Work, done overseas cost less money. This I not the case in this specific example and this example with the exemption of all other know examples of any kind. There will be zero cost savings. So to clarify: The only reason external testing is done in this specific test and this test in exclusivity, only this test and not other known test is to ensure blind input is entered into the overall evaluation. Another reason is the climate in a specific region can not be replicated in the US. It does not apply here, but it is indeed another reason. Quick question, is, in this case, "...overseas..." the same as, "...external..." ? Reference; "... and 3 will be done overseas ..." Yes. My personal terminology for teams acting inside the scope of parameters I see as "external" will be called "external" and in this case all teams that have agreed to do this are across a large body of water. Thus they, to me, are "overseas". |
|
Title: Re: Interesting Post by Eegore on 08/19/24 at 06:44:55 Ok since no information is being shared on what the interpretation of the baseball "Strike Zone" size is, we will be going with MLB definition: The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball. Unfortunately that makes a tremendous amount of variable in height. The width is always 17" There are statistics from MLB for batter's heights so every MLB player height from the past 5 years will be averaged to calculate the "Strike Zone" height parameter. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |