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.

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.

Eegore wrote on 09/17/23 at 14:28:14:


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….

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.

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

PS  I would motorboat that  

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

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.

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.