Trump Supporters: Can you defend this? - Page 5

Roger Ramjets · 14th June 2020, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

All conspiracy theorists have trouble understanding this.

Personally, I think they pretend to not understand; they do it on purpose.

Except in this case it isn't a conspiracy theory - it's deflection.

In a previous post (which absolutely was not a Poe, honest!) I imagined what excuses a Trump supporter (aka republican/conservative/deplorable) might come up with to defend his obnoxious tweet. This isn't hard because there are plenty of other examples to draw from. So it came as no surprise to later find out that 'fake blood' was one of them. These 'CT's' are not theories about what might have really happened, but simply attempts to neutralize the shocking facts of the incident. These people truly are deplorable.

The Great Zaganza · 14th June 2020, 02:40 AM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

ChrisBFRPKY · 14th June 2020, 02:52 AM

I wonder if it's possible to use a cell phone to bluetooth connect to a police body cam in order to receive video and audio from it?

Chris B.

smartcooky · 14th June 2020, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

I wonder if it's possible to use a cell phone to bluetooth connect to a police body cam in order to receive video and audio from it?

Chris B.

No, its not

Bluetooth devices have maximum bitrate of about 350k bits/sec (theoretically, Bluetooth could handle higher rates, but the devices at both ends of the stream would need to allow that. Bluetooth doesn't have the continuous bandwidth necessary to stream even low resolution video.

dann · 14th June 2020, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

I wonder if it's possible to use a cell phone to bluetooth connect to a police body cam in order to receive video and audio from it?

Why do you wonder?

newyorkguy · 14th June 2020, 07:43 AM

Quote:

...OK, if he was scanning the officers with the device in his hand as the video appears to show him doing...

Anyone who would seriously believe that would probably believe anything. Like Big Foot exists.

Babbylonian · 14th June 2020, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Anyone who would seriously believe that would probably believe anything. Like Big Foot exists.

FWIW, all references to Bigfoot are off-topic in this thread.

newyorkguy · 14th June 2020, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

FWIW, all references to Bigfoot are off-topic in this thread.

Okay.

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Anyone who would seriously believe that would probably believe anything. Like ~~Big Foot~~ Santa Claus exists.

Better?

pgwenthold · 14th June 2020, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by dann

Why do you wonder?

Because he needs it to be true to be able to hold on to his delusion

bruto · 14th June 2020, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

No, its not

Bluetooth devices have maximum bitrate of about 350k bits/sec (theoretically, Bluetooth could handle higher rates, but the devices at both ends of the stream would need to allow that. Bluetooth doesn't have the continuous bandwidth necessary to stream even low resolution video.

Aside from that, though I will admit to having used bluetooth only a few times, I thought that in order to do so one has to poll the devices to establish communication. Is it realistic to think a person holding a phone and marching toward a cop would be able to perform the pairing without visibly looking at, or operating, the device?

e.t.a. but of course might he have been a space traveler from planet X with a super-bluetoothy space module from the unknown, sending secret signals via his lizard brain to George Soros's secret volcanic hideout? Not of course alleging anything, just asking.

The Shrike · 14th June 2020, 08:34 AM

So... looks like no defense of Trump's ridiculous tweet about Martin Gugino, then. Got it.

The lesson is – yet again – that there is no depth of depraved inanity that Trump could plumb that would not be defended by Cult 45. He is affirmation of their looniest fantasies on the world's most powerful stage. (Well, it used to be before Putin took charge of it, I suppose.)

Which means that the key remains not the cultists but those who look the other way and end up enabling him. They're the ones who think he's "good for the economy" or some such nonsense, and that's the messaging that needs to be hammered home to rid the world of this fecal extravaganza. Yep, unemployment for May looked a bit better than it was for April. It went *down* to 13% from 15%. Never mind how that racist buttmunch used this news to desecrate the memory of George Floyd (which is an extraordinary thing to "never mind"), he's celebrating 13% unemployment. He inherited 6 years of continuous job growth, managed for 3 years not to screw that up, and then bungled his response to a crisis that in three months saw this country hit unemployment rates not seen since the Great Depression. On the economy, he's awful!

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...mployment-rate

acbytesla · 14th June 2020, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

So... looks like no defense of Trump's ridiculous tweet about Martin Gugino, then. Got it.

The lesson is – yet again – that there is no depth of depraved inanity that Trump could plumb that would not be defended by Cult 45. He is affirmation of their looniest fantasies on the world's most powerful stage. (Well, it used to be before Putin took charge of it, I suppose.)

Which means that the key remains not the cultists but those who look the other way and end up enabling him. They're the ones who think he's "good for the economy" or some such nonsense, and that's the messaging that needs to be hammered home to rid the world of this fecal extravaganza. Yep, unemployment for May looked a bit better than it was for April. It went *down* to 13% from 15%. Never mind how that racist buttmunch used this news to desecrate the memory of George Floyd (which is an extraordinary thing to "never mind"), he's celebrating 13% unemployment. He inherited 6 years of continuous job growth, managed for 3 years not to screw that up, and then bungled his response to a crisis that in three months saw this country hit unemployment rates not seen since the Great Depression. On the economy, he's awful!

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...mployment-rate

It cracks me up that I'm seeing banners that say

Trump 2020
Enough BS

Enough BS"? Trump BS's more than any human being alive.

Tommok · 14th June 2020, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

#2 They determine he was not trying to scan police devices.:
"We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices."

Uhm... no.

A does not follow from B. This has been pointed out many times.

p0lka · 14th June 2020, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

..snip..

#2 They determine he was not trying to scan police devices.:
"We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices."

There's a difference between not accepting a claim, and making a claim of your own.
They didn't determine(make a claim) he was not trying to scan police devices,
they said "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices."
Would you agree that there's a difference?

EDIT: ninja'd by Tommok, haha.

Stacyhs · 14th June 2020, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Exactly as I said, the statement is there is no way to make a determination based on the video and yet the BBC fact checker made more than one.

#1 They determined the device in his hand was a phone.:
"From the clip, it's not possible to tell what he was doing with the phone."

OK, I know you can't see exactly what the device is in his hand but it looks like a cell phone to us so you can take our word that it is a cell phone.

#2 They determine he was not trying to scan police devices.:
"We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices."

OK, disregard that in the video you saw the man making scanning motions with whatever device was in his hand and trust us that we saw no evidence he was doing what it looked like he was. When security personnel make those same types of motions toward you at a metal detector checkpoint they're just being friendly and there is no evidence you are being scanned for anything.

#3 They support #2 with the next statement:
"It is also not clear how police equipment could be interfered with in this way."

OK, if he was scanning the officers with the device in his hand as the video appears to show him doing, we don't know how it could interfere with police equipment. You can trust our word that since we don't know how it could be done, it can't be done because we're so much smarter than you.

"From the clip, it's not possible to tell what he was doing with the phone. We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices. It is also not clear how police equipment could be interfered with in this way."

Chris B.

ChrisBFRPKY · 14th June 2020, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

No, its not

Bluetooth devices have maximum bitrate of about 350k bits/sec (theoretically, Bluetooth could handle higher rates, but the devices at both ends of the stream would need to allow that. Bluetooth doesn't have the continuous bandwidth necessary to stream even low resolution video.

After some google searches I found a website for Axon body cameras with instructions for pairing either iphones or android phones with an Axon body camera.

According to the site, the Axon 2 body cams can connect via bluetooth and wifi. It does say WIFI is required for viewing live video on the Axon 2 cams.

I suppose most people have a hot spot connection available on their iphones. If the cam connects to an open wifi hotspot on the phone, there you are. You're connected with the body cam and Robert's your uncle.

https://help.axon.com/hc/en-us/artic...-camera#iosAB2

And then there's this video on hacking police body cams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izvzn5RO0lI

Chris B.

ChrisBFRPKY · 14th June 2020, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Tommok

Uhm... no.

A does not follow from B. This has been pointed out many times.

Do you agree the BBC report determines he was holding a phone in his hand?

Originally Posted by p0lka

There's a difference between not accepting a claim, and making a claim of your own.
They didn't determine(make a claim) he was not trying to scan police devices,
they said "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices."
Would you agree that there's a difference?

EDIT: ninja'd by Tommok, haha.

Same question, do you agree the BBC determines he was holding a phone in his hand?

Chris B.

P.J. Denyer · 14th June 2020, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

After some google searches I found a website for Axon body cameras with instructions for pairing either iphones or android phones with an Axon body camera.

According to the site, the Axon 2 body cams can connect via bluetooth and wifi. It does say WIFI is required for viewing live video on the Axon 2 cams.

I suppose most people have a hot spot connection available on their iphones. If the cam connects to an open wifi hotspot on the phone, there you are. You're connected with the body cam and Robert's your uncle.

https://help.axon.com/hc/en-us/artic...-camera#iosAB2

And then there's this video on hacking police body cams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izvzn5RO0lI

Chris B.

If the police bodycams connected to any wifi hotspot and this was a problem they wouldn't be able to walk past a coffee shop. There's more to hacking a device than it just having a means of connection. Oh, and neither wifi nor bluetooth would require getting anywhere near that close.

As I've already pointed out it looks to me like he's filming on his phone and documenting the police's insignia and identification, or lack of the same. I have exactly as much evidence as you but the advantage that the idea doesn't require unlikely technology or the police using equipment set up to connect to other peoples devices randomly.

P.J. Denyer · 14th June 2020, 12:24 PM

Add to that in the close up video Chris links to in #102 you can see the device quite clearly, the front is entirely a screen (like a cell phone) and you can see that it is displaying what is clearly the feed from a camera on the other side of the object (like a phone with the camera/video app open).

Either it's a phone or 'Q' has started selling out of the back of a van!

Stacyhs · 14th June 2020, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Do you agree the BBC report determines he was holding a phone in his hand?

Same question, do you agree the BBC determines he was holding a phone in his hand?

Chris B.

They qualify it being a phone by first saying this:

Quote:

Footage of 75-year-old Martin Gugino shows him approaching police lines holding up what appears to be a mobile phone which he points at one of the officers.

That it was, in fact, a phone has not been questioned by anyone except nutty conspiracy theorists and that originated from OANN which is well known to push crazy CTs.

The BBC article, however, does determine his name is Gugino, he's 75, a man, and was pushed down.

smartcooky · 14th June 2020, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

Aside from that, though I will admit to having used bluetooth only a few times, I thought that in order to do so one has to poll the devices to establish communication. Is it realistic to think a person holding a phone and marching toward a cop would be able to perform the pairing without visibly looking at, or operating, the device?

e.t.a. but of course might he have been a space traveler from planet X with a super-bluetoothy space module from the unknown, sending secret signals via his lizard brain to George Soros's secret volcanic hideout? Not of course alleging anything, just asking.

And you either need the passcode of the device you are trying to pair with, or the person who has that device has to press a button to allow it to pair. And thats assuming that the bodycam is even equipped with some sort of wireless streaming the first place. Most of them use an encrypted memory card, or internal memory that is downloaded later.

Babbylonian · 14th June 2020, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And you either need the passcode of the device you are trying to pair with, or the person who has that device has to press a button to allow it to pair. And thats assuming that the bodycam is even equipped with some sort of wireless streaming the first place. Most of them use an encrypted memory card, or internal memory that is downloaded later.

And, just for funsies, if it was possible to connect to a police officer's body cam at Bluetooth range, why would anyone give a ******?

pgwenthold · 14th June 2020, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

And, just for funsies, if it was possible to connect to a police officer's body cam at Bluetooth range, why would anyone give a ******?

Yeah, talk about a conspiracy theory that's off the rails.

blutoski · 14th June 2020, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

As I've already pointed out it looks to me like he's filming on his phone and documenting the police's insignia and identification, or lack of the same. I have exactly as much evidence as you but the advantage that the idea doesn't require unlikely technology or the police using equipment set up to connect to other peoples devices randomly.

This has been my impression consistently. It looks exactly like he's recording the interaction on his phone voice memo app, and possibly trying to get a snapshot of the officers' IDs in case he needed to file a complaint. Well within his rights as a taxpayer.

But, of course, to an officer, this means his brains have to be splattered on the pavement.

Notice that their primary activity at that point was not first aid, but to zero in on the camera operator and force them to stop as well. Perhaps they said, "See what happened to the last guy who was filming us? Nice skull you got there, shame if something happened and it got cracked."

I come from this with a bit of biased experience. When I was in my 20s I was photographing a riot in Vancouver. An officer asked to see my camera. Then he dropped it on the pavement from shoulder level, smashing the lens and popping the back off to expose the film. My first direct interaction with a police officer, and as you can imagine, very educational. It's only in retrospect that I thought, "Argh. Shoulda got his badge number or something." So I can see how a seasoned protester like Gugino would be doing that proactively.

I still have the camera as a constant reminder. It was my grandfather's Spotmatic that he bequeathed to me when he died, and what was a gorgeous f1.0 50mm lens never really worked properly again.

newyorkguy · 14th June 2020, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Add to that in the close up video Chris links to in #102 you can see the device quite clearly, the front is entirely a screen (like a cell phone) and you can see that it is displaying what is clearly the feed from a camera on the other side of the object (like a phone with the camera/video app open).

Either it's a phone or 'Q' has started selling out of the back of a van!

It also looks like Gugino is talking and gesturing with the hand that is holding the phone. My guess from the body language -- and this is just a guess -- is Gugino was gesturing at the rifle the cop on Gugino's right is cradling and asking him: "Why do you need that?"

thaiboxerken · 14th June 2020, 02:09 PM

Well, there was one apologist trying to defend Trump. It's not surprising that the defenses are absolutely nonsense.

Stacyhs · 14th June 2020, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

It also looks like Gugino is talking and gesturing with the hand that is holding the phone. My guess from the body language -- and this is just a guess -- is Gugino was gesturing at the rifle the cop on Gugino's right is cradling and asking him: "Why do you need that?"

I would really like to hear Gugino's explanation of what happened. So far, we haven't. This could be due to brain damage/memory problems or it could be at his lawyer's advice because they're filing a lawsuit. So far, I've seen nothing in the media about that.

ETA: I suspect Gugino's explanation that it was just a cell phone and he wasn't Antifa trying jam police communications would be met with accusations of "Well, that's exactly what an Antifa agitator would say!"

blutoski · 14th June 2020, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

I wonder if it's possible to use a cell phone to bluetooth connect to a police body cam in order to receive video and audio from it?

Chris B.

Not any model I could locate. These police appeared to be using Axon branded (same company that makes Tasers) and they only support live stream through encrypted VPN.

Meaning, to get access, an app needs to be provided credentials by the police.

smartcooky · 14th June 2020, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I would really like to hear Gugino's explanation of what happened. So far, we haven't. This could be due to brain damage/memory problems or it could be at his lawyer's advice because they're filing a lawsuit. So far, I've seen nothing in the media about that.

ETA: I suspect Gugino's explanation that it was just a cell phone and he wasn't Antifa trying jam police communications would be met with accusations of "Well, that's exactly what an Antifa agitator would say!"

If you are trying to jam Police communications, being on the ground with a milliwatt power handheld device is the worst choice. Someone with Ham radio experience could easily build a small, 250W RF jammer, powered by a motorcycle battery, pack it all into a metal case the size of a briefcase, and take it to the top of a high rise building to increase the range (because line of sight is a thing at the frequencies used for Police communications).

Then they will have no idea where you are, you are out of the firing line of the Police, where you can jam their communications at your leisure!

As usual, the conspiracy theory scenario is the stupidest, most unlikely scenario of all.

Mader Levap · 14th June 2020, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

As usual, the conspiracy theory scenario is the stupidest, most unlikely scenario of all.

It is almost like it is not scenario created with serious intent, but consciously made up lie to sow confusion, doubt and uncertainty, to muddy water and in this way make it less damning to thugs in police uniforms.

Basically, ChrisBFRPKY is full of it and knows it.

p0lka · 14th June 2020, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Do you agree the BBC report determines he was holding a phone in his hand?

Same question, do you agree the BBC determines he was holding a phone in his hand?

Chris B.

I asked a question,

Originally Posted by p0lka

There's a difference between not accepting a claim, and making a claim of your own.
They didn't determine(make a claim) he was not trying to scan police devices,
they said "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices."
Would you agree that there's a difference?

an answer would would be nice, then the discussion can move forward.

theprestige · 14th June 2020, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

I asked a question,

an answer would would be nice, then the discussion can move forward.

To me it reads like meaningless filler. It's supposed to give the impression that something important has been said, but in reality... nothing has been said.

It's a subjective inference, an opinion of the reporter. But nobody cares about the reporter's opinion. If all they're going to report is "I'm not sure, but I don't think it happened", then why even bother?

The sad thing is, there's someone out there right now citing this "claim" as evidence that the guy wasn't doing the thing.

The nice thing about reporting facts is that it limits reporter bias. The crappy thing about reporting the reporter's own opinions is that it pretty much guarantees bias. The last thing anybody needs in a news report is the reporter saying, "I didn't see anything that makes me think that it happened."

But as we all know, the reporter is not our friend.

smartcooky · 14th June 2020, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The sad thing is, there's someone out there right now citing this "claim" as evidence that the guy wasn't doing the thing.

No, the sad thing is that we live in the kind of ****** up world where this sort of preposterous claim even exists at all.

Originally Posted by theprestige

The nice thing about reporting facts is that it limits reporter bias.

Well actually, it eliminates reporter bias

Originally Posted by theprestige

The crappy thing about reporting the reporter's own opinions is that it pretty much guarantees bias. The last thing anybody needs in a news report is the reporter saying, "I didn't see anything that makes me think that it happened."

That is a very cynical way of looking at it.

Originally Posted by theprestige

But as we all know, the reporter is not our friend.

You may think you "know" this, but you don't speak for me!

I consider the reporter my friend, because without the reporter I am not informed, I would have to rely on the words of Trump and his corrupt minions - all proven liars, every one!

acbytesla · 14th June 2020, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

To me it reads like meaningless filler. It's supposed to give the impression that something important has been said, but in reality... nothing has been said.

It's a subjective inference, an opinion of the reporter. But nobody cares about the reporter's opinion. If all they're going to report is "I'm not sure, but I don't think it happened", then why even bother?

The sad thing is, there's someone out there right now citing this "claim" as evidence that the guy wasn't doing the thing.

The nice thing about reporting facts is that it limits reporter bias. The crappy thing about reporting the reporter's own opinions is that it pretty much guarantees bias. The last thing anybody needs in a news report is the reporter saying, "I didn't see anything that makes me think that it happened."

But as we all know, the reporter is not our friend.

Really weak Prestige. No one said Gugino was doing nothing. Just that the idea that he was scanning police communications traffic as an ANTIFA member is absurd and insulting to one's intelligence based on what we know.

Trump is POTUS. Not some crazy nutjob in a basement somewhere. The tweet was irresponsible and insane for Trump to tweet it.

Trump's stupidity is expected. Defense of Trump's stupidity is expected by nutjobs. It is not expected from anyone with a brain.

ChrisBFRPKY · 14th June 2020, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

I asked a question,

an answer would would be nice, then the discussion can move forward.

Sure. I can agree that there is a difference between the statement "We have seen no evidence of (insert whatever you like here)." and a direct statement like "He was not doing (whatever you don't want him doing here.)

After all, the piece begins with "From the clip, it's not possible to tell what he was doing with the phone".

Now, about the "phone".

Chris B.

Stacyhs · 14th June 2020, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Really weak Prestige. No one said Gugino was doing nothing. Just that the idea that he was scanning police communications traffic as an ANTIFA member is absurd and insulting to one's intelligence based on what we know.

Trump is POTUS not some crazy nutjob in a basement somewhere. The tweet was irresponsible and insane for Trump to tweet it.

Trump's stupidity is expected. Defense of Trump's stupidity is expected by nutjobs. It is not expected from anyone with a brain.

I've often wondered what is so attractive about conspiracy theories to some people. What is it that makes them embrace the most outlandish ideas with such fervor? I don't get it. Maybe their lives are just boring and they need the excitement it apparently brings to them.

Stacyhs · 14th June 2020, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Sure. I can agree that there is a difference between the statement "We have seen no evidence of (insert whatever you like here)." and a direct statement like "He was not doing (whatever you don't want him doing here.)

After all, the piece begins with "From the clip, it's not possible to tell what he was doing with the phone".

Now, about the "phone".

Chris B.

Um...no. As I posted before, which you either missed or hand waved away, the first mention of the word "phone" is this:

Quote:

Footage of 75-year-old Martin Gugino shows him approaching police lines holding up what appears to be a mobile phone which he points at one of the officers.

MarkCorrigan · 14th June 2020, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It cracks me up that I'm seeing banners that say

Trump 2020
Enough BS

Enough BS"? Trump BS's more than any human being alive.

Maybe they're extolling it as a virtue? Like "Vote in Trump because he spreads enough BS to go around! The Dems and RINOs dont have nearly enough BS!"

acbytesla · 14th June 2020, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Maybe they're extolling it as a virtue? Like "Vote in Trump because he spreads enough BS to go around! The Dems and RINOs dont have nearly enough BS!"

Maybe.

Kind of like "Got milk"?

MarkCorrigan · 14th June 2020, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Maybe.

Kind of like "Got milk"?

Exactly. It's a considerably less horrifying an explanation than the alternative.

14th June 2020, 02:39 AM	#161
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,378	Originally Posted by smartcooky All conspiracy theorists have trouble understanding this. Personally, I think they pretend to not understand; they do it on purpose. Except in this case it isn't a conspiracy theory - it's deflection. In a previous post (which absolutely was not a Poe, honest!) I imagined what excuses a Trump supporter (aka republican/conservative/deplorable) might come up with to defend his obnoxious tweet. This isn't hard because there are plenty of other examples to draw from. So it came as no surprise to later find out that 'fake blood' was one of them. These 'CT's' are not theories about what might have really happened, but simply attempts to neutralize the shocking facts of the incident. These people truly are deplorable.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

14th June 2020, 02:40 AM	#162
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,874	Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so

14th June 2020, 02:52 AM	#163
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,692	I wonder if it's possible to use a cell phone to bluetooth connect to a police body cam in order to receive video and audio from it? Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,692

14th June 2020, 03:16 AM	#164
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,219	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY I wonder if it's possible to use a cell phone to bluetooth connect to a police body cam in order to receive video and audio from it? Chris B. No, its not Bluetooth devices have maximum bitrate of about 350k bits/sec (theoretically, Bluetooth could handle higher rates, but the devices at both ends of the stream would need to allow that. Bluetooth doesn't have the continuous bandwidth necessary to stream even low resolution video.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 14th June 2020 at 03:24 AM.

14th June 2020, 04:00 AM	#165
dann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 13,933	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY I wonder if it's possible to use a cell phone to bluetooth connect to a police body cam in order to receive video and audio from it? Why do you wonder?
	__________________ /dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

14th June 2020, 07:43 AM	#166
newyorkguy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: NY Posts: 11,573	Quote: ...OK, if he was scanning the officers with the device in his hand as the video appears to show him doing... Anyone who would seriously believe that would probably believe anything. Like Big Foot exists.

14th June 2020, 07:50 AM	#167
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,548	Originally Posted by newyorkguy Anyone who would seriously believe that would probably believe anything. Like Big Foot exists. FWIW, all references to Bigfoot are off-topic in this thread.

14th June 2020, 08:05 AM	#168
newyorkguy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: NY Posts: 11,573	Originally Posted by Babbylonian FWIW, all references to Bigfoot are off-topic in this thread. Okay. Originally Posted by newyorkguy Anyone who would seriously believe that would probably believe anything. Like ~~Big Foot~~ Santa Claus exists. Better?

14th June 2020, 08:20 AM	#169
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,228	Originally Posted by dann Why do you wonder? Because he needs it to be true to be able to hold on to his delusion
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

14th June 2020, 08:23 AM	#170
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 28,266	Originally Posted by smartcooky No, its not Bluetooth devices have maximum bitrate of about 350k bits/sec (theoretically, Bluetooth could handle higher rates, but the devices at both ends of the stream would need to allow that. Bluetooth doesn't have the continuous bandwidth necessary to stream even low resolution video. Aside from that, though I will admit to having used bluetooth only a few times, I thought that in order to do so one has to poll the devices to establish communication. Is it realistic to think a person holding a phone and marching toward a cop would be able to perform the pairing without visibly looking at, or operating, the device? e.t.a. but of course might he have been a space traveler from planet X with a super-bluetoothy space module from the unknown, sending secret signals via his lizard brain to George Soros's secret volcanic hideout? Not of course alleging anything, just asking.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard) Last edited by bruto; 14th June 2020 at 08:28 AM.

14th June 2020, 08:34 AM	#171
The Shrike Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 5,147	So... looks like no defense of Trump's ridiculous tweet about Martin Gugino, then. Got it. The lesson is – yet again – that there is no depth of depraved inanity that Trump could plumb that would not be defended by Cult 45. He is affirmation of their looniest fantasies on the world's most powerful stage. (Well, it used to be before Putin took charge of it, I suppose.) Which means that the key remains not the cultists but those who look the other way and end up enabling him. They're the ones who think he's "good for the economy" or some such nonsense, and that's the messaging that needs to be hammered home to rid the world of this fecal extravaganza. Yep, unemployment for May looked a bit better than it was for April. It went down to 13% from 15%. Never mind how that racist buttmunch used this news to desecrate the memory of George Floyd (which is an extraordinary thing to "never mind"), he's celebrating 13%* unemployment. He inherited 6 years of continuous job growth, managed for 3 years not to screw that up, and then bungled his response to a crisis that in three months saw this country hit unemployment rates not seen since the Great Depression. On the economy, he's awful!* https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...mployment-rate

14th June 2020, 10:22 AM	#172
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,593	Originally Posted by The Shrike So... looks like no defense of Trump's ridiculous tweet about Martin Gugino, then. Got it. The lesson is – yet again – that there is no depth of depraved inanity that Trump could plumb that would not be defended by Cult 45. He is affirmation of their looniest fantasies on the world's most powerful stage. (Well, it used to be before Putin took charge of it, I suppose.) Which means that the key remains not the cultists but those who look the other way and end up enabling him. They're the ones who think he's "good for the economy" or some such nonsense, and that's the messaging that needs to be hammered home to rid the world of this fecal extravaganza. Yep, unemployment for May looked a bit better than it was for April. It went down to 13% from 15%. Never mind how that racist buttmunch used this news to desecrate the memory of George Floyd (which is an extraordinary thing to "never mind"), he's celebrating 13%* unemployment. He inherited 6 years of continuous job growth, managed for 3 years not to screw that up, and then bungled his response to a crisis that in three months saw this country hit unemployment rates not seen since the Great Depression. On the economy, he's awful!* https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...mployment-rate It cracks me up that I'm seeing banners that say Trump 2020 Enough BS Enough BS"? Trump BS's more than any human being alive.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 14th June 2020 at 10:24 AM.

14th June 2020, 10:48 AM	#173
Tommok Scholar Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 65	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY #2 They determine he was not trying to scan police devices.: "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices." Uhm... no. A does not follow from B. This has been pointed out many times.
Tommok Scholar Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 65

14th June 2020, 10:52 AM	#174
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,266	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY ..snip.. #2 They determine he was not trying to scan police devices.: "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices." There's a difference between not accepting a claim, and making a claim of your own. They didn't determine(make a claim) he was not trying to scan police devices, they said "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices." Would you agree that there's a difference? EDIT: ninja'd by Tommok, haha.
	Last edited by p0lka; 14th June 2020 at 10:55 AM.

14th June 2020, 12:00 PM	#175
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,232	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY Exactly as I said, the statement is there is no way to make a determination based on the video and yet the BBC fact checker made more than one. #1 They determined the device in his hand was a phone.: "From the clip, it's not possible to tell what he was doing with the phone." OK, I know you can't see exactly what the device is in his hand but it looks like a cell phone to us so you can take our word that it is a cell phone. #2 They determine he was not trying to scan police devices.: "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices." OK, disregard that in the video you saw the man making scanning motions with whatever device was in his hand and trust us that we saw no evidence he was doing what it looked like he was. When security personnel make those same types of motions toward you at a metal detector checkpoint they're just being friendly and there is no evidence you are being scanned for anything. #3 They support #2 with the next statement: "It is also not clear how police equipment could be interfered with in this way." OK, if he was scanning the officers with the device in his hand as the video appears to show him doing, we don't know how it could interfere with police equipment. You can trust our word that since we don't know how it could be done, it can't be done because we're so much smarter than you. "From the clip, it's not possible to tell what he was doing with the phone. We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices. It is also not clear how police equipment could be interfered with in this way." Chris B.

14th June 2020, 12:07 PM	#176
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,692	Originally Posted by smartcooky No, its not Bluetooth devices have maximum bitrate of about 350k bits/sec (theoretically, Bluetooth could handle higher rates, but the devices at both ends of the stream would need to allow that. Bluetooth doesn't have the continuous bandwidth necessary to stream even low resolution video. After some google searches I found a website for Axon body cameras with instructions for pairing either iphones or android phones with an Axon body camera. According to the site, the Axon 2 body cams can connect via bluetooth and wifi. It does say WIFI is required for viewing live video on the Axon 2 cams. I suppose most people have a hot spot connection available on their iphones. If the cam connects to an open wifi hotspot on the phone, there you are. You're connected with the body cam and Robert's your uncle. https://help.axon.com/hc/en-us/artic...-camera#iosAB2 And then there's this video on hacking police body cams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izvzn5RO0lI Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,692

14th June 2020, 12:13 PM	#177
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,692	Originally Posted by Tommok Uhm... no. A does not follow from B. This has been pointed out many times. Do you agree the BBC report determines he was holding a phone in his hand? Originally Posted by p0lka There's a difference between not accepting a claim, and making a claim of your own. They didn't determine(make a claim) he was not trying to scan police devices, they said "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices." Would you agree that there's a difference? EDIT: ninja'd by Tommok, haha. Same question, do you agree the BBC determines he was holding a phone in his hand? Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,692

14th June 2020, 12:14 PM	#178
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,013	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY After some google searches I found a website for Axon body cameras with instructions for pairing either iphones or android phones with an Axon body camera. According to the site, the Axon 2 body cams can connect via bluetooth and wifi. It does say WIFI is required for viewing live video on the Axon 2 cams. I suppose most people have a hot spot connection available on their iphones. If the cam connects to an open wifi hotspot on the phone, there you are. You're connected with the body cam and Robert's your uncle. https://help.axon.com/hc/en-us/artic...-camera#iosAB2 And then there's this video on hacking police body cams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izvzn5RO0lI Chris B. If the police bodycams connected to any wifi hotspot and this was a problem they wouldn't be able to walk past a coffee shop. There's more to hacking a device than it just having a means of connection. Oh, and neither wifi nor bluetooth would require getting anywhere near that close. As I've already pointed out it looks to me like he's filming on his phone and documenting the police's insignia and identification, or lack of the same. I have exactly as much evidence as you but the advantage that the idea doesn't require unlikely technology or the police using equipment set up to connect to other peoples devices randomly.
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,013	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

14th June 2020, 12:24 PM	#179
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,013	Add to that in the close up video Chris links to in #102 you can see the device quite clearly, the front is entirely a screen (like a cell phone) and you can see that it is displaying what is clearly the feed from a camera on the other side of the object (like a phone with the camera/video app open). Either it's a phone or 'Q' has started selling out of the back of a van!
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8,013	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

14th June 2020, 12:32 PM	#180
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,232	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY Do you agree the BBC report determines he was holding a phone in his hand? Same question, do you agree the BBC determines he was holding a phone in his hand? Chris B. They qualify it being a phone by first saying this: Quote: Footage of 75-year-old Martin Gugino shows him approaching police lines holding up what appears to be a mobile phone which he points at one of the officers. That it was, in fact, a phone has not been questioned by anyone except nutty conspiracy theorists and that originated from OANN which is well known to push crazy CTs. The BBC article, however, does determine his name is Gugino, he's 75, a man, and was pushed down.

14th June 2020, 12:50 PM	#181
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,219	Originally Posted by bruto Aside from that, though I will admit to having used bluetooth only a few times, I thought that in order to do so one has to poll the devices to establish communication. Is it realistic to think a person holding a phone and marching toward a cop would be able to perform the pairing without visibly looking at, or operating, the device? e.t.a. but of course might he have been a space traveler from planet X with a super-bluetoothy space module from the unknown, sending secret signals via his lizard brain to George Soros's secret volcanic hideout? Not of course alleging anything, just asking. And you either need the passcode of the device you are trying to pair with, or the person who has that device has to press a button to allow it to pair. And thats assuming that the bodycam is even equipped with some sort of wireless streaming the first place. Most of them use an encrypted memory card, or internal memory that is downloaded later.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

14th June 2020, 01:03 PM	#182
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,548	Originally Posted by smartcooky And you either need the passcode of the device you are trying to pair with, or the person who has that device has to press a button to allow it to pair. And thats assuming that the bodycam is even equipped with some sort of wireless streaming the first place. Most of them use an encrypted memory card, or internal memory that is downloaded later. And, just for funsies, if it was possible to connect to a police officer's body cam at Bluetooth range, why would anyone give a ******?

14th June 2020, 01:40 PM	#183
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,228	Originally Posted by Babbylonian And, just for funsies, if it was possible to connect to a police officer's body cam at Bluetooth range, why would anyone give a ******? Yeah, talk about a conspiracy theory that's off the rails.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

14th June 2020, 02:03 PM	#184
blutoski Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,382	Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer As I've already pointed out it looks to me like he's filming on his phone and documenting the police's insignia and identification, or lack of the same. I have exactly as much evidence as you but the advantage that the idea doesn't require unlikely technology or the police using equipment set up to connect to other peoples devices randomly. This has been my impression consistently. It looks exactly like he's recording the interaction on his phone voice memo app, and possibly trying to get a snapshot of the officers' IDs in case he needed to file a complaint. Well within his rights as a taxpayer. But, of course, to an officer, this means his brains have to be splattered on the pavement. Notice that their primary activity at that point was not first aid, but to zero in on the camera operator and force them to stop as well. Perhaps they said, "See what happened to the last guy who was filming us? Nice skull you got there, shame if something happened and it got cracked." I come from this with a bit of biased experience. When I was in my 20s I was photographing a riot in Vancouver. An officer asked to see my camera. Then he dropped it on the pavement from shoulder level, smashing the lens and popping the back off to expose the film. My first direct interaction with a police officer, and as you can imagine, very educational. It's only in retrospect that I thought, "Argh. Shoulda got his badge number or something." So I can see how a seasoned protester like Gugino would be doing that proactively. I still have the camera as a constant reminder. It was my grandfather's Spotmatic that he bequeathed to me when he died, and what was a gorgeous f1.0 50mm lens never really worked properly again.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

14th June 2020, 02:05 PM	#185
newyorkguy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: NY Posts: 11,573	Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer Add to that in the close up video Chris links to in #102 you can see the device quite clearly, the front is entirely a screen (like a cell phone) and you can see that it is displaying what is clearly the feed from a camera on the other side of the object (like a phone with the camera/video app open). Either it's a phone or 'Q' has started selling out of the back of a van! It also looks like Gugino is talking and gesturing with the hand that is holding the phone. My guess from the body language -- and this is just a guess -- is Gugino was gesturing at the rifle the cop on Gugino's right is cradling and asking him: "Why do you need that?"

14th June 2020, 02:09 PM	#186
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,717	Well, there was one apologist trying to defend Trump. It's not surprising that the defenses are absolutely nonsense.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

14th June 2020, 02:11 PM	#187
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,232	Originally Posted by newyorkguy It also looks like Gugino is talking and gesturing with the hand that is holding the phone. My guess from the body language -- and this is just a guess -- is Gugino was gesturing at the rifle the cop on Gugino's right is cradling and asking him: "Why do you need that?" I would really like to hear Gugino's explanation of what happened. So far, we haven't. This could be due to brain damage/memory problems or it could be at his lawyer's advice because they're filing a lawsuit. So far, I've seen nothing in the media about that. ETA: I suspect Gugino's explanation that it was just a cell phone and he wasn't Antifa trying jam police communications would be met with accusations of "Well, that's exactly what an Antifa agitator would say!"
	Last edited by Stacyhs; 14th June 2020 at 02:39 PM.

14th June 2020, 02:14 PM	#188
blutoski Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,382	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY I wonder if it's possible to use a cell phone to bluetooth connect to a police body cam in order to receive video and audio from it? Chris B. Not any model I could locate. These police appeared to be using Axon branded (same company that makes Tasers) and they only support live stream through encrypted VPN. Meaning, to get access, an app needs to be provided credentials by the police.
	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

14th June 2020, 03:17 PM	#189
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,219	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I would really like to hear Gugino's explanation of what happened. So far, we haven't. This could be due to brain damage/memory problems or it could be at his lawyer's advice because they're filing a lawsuit. So far, I've seen nothing in the media about that. ETA: I suspect Gugino's explanation that it was just a cell phone and he wasn't Antifa trying jam police communications would be met with accusations of "Well, that's exactly what an Antifa agitator would say!" If you are trying to jam Police communications, being on the ground with a milliwatt power handheld device is the worst choice. Someone with Ham radio experience could easily build a small, 250W RF jammer, powered by a motorcycle battery, pack it all into a metal case the size of a briefcase, and take it to the top of a high rise building to increase the range (because line of sight is a thing at the frequencies used for Police communications). Then they will have no idea where you are, you are out of the firing line of the Police, where you can jam their communications at your leisure! As usual, the conspiracy theory scenario is the stupidest, most unlikely scenario of all.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

14th June 2020, 03:30 PM	#190
Mader Levap Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,576	Originally Posted by smartcooky As usual, the conspiracy theory scenario is the stupidest, most unlikely scenario of all. It is almost like it is not scenario created with serious intent, but consciously made up lie to sow confusion, doubt and uncertainty, to muddy water and in this way make it less damning to thugs in police uniforms. Basically, ChrisBFRPKY is full of it and knows it.
	__________________ Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.

14th June 2020, 03:30 PM	#191
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,266	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY Do you agree the BBC report determines he was holding a phone in his hand? Same question, do you agree the BBC determines he was holding a phone in his hand? Chris B. I asked a question, Originally Posted by p0lka There's a difference between not accepting a claim, and making a claim of your own. They didn't determine(make a claim) he was not trying to scan police devices, they said "We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices." Would you agree that there's a difference? an answer would would be nice, then the discussion can move forward.

14th June 2020, 04:47 PM	#192
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,639	Originally Posted by p0lka I asked a question, an answer would would be nice, then the discussion can move forward. To me it reads like meaningless filler. It's supposed to give the impression that something important has been said, but in reality... nothing has been said. It's a subjective inference, an opinion of the reporter. But nobody cares about the reporter's opinion. If all they're going to report is "I'm not sure, but I don't think it happened", then why even bother? The sad thing is, there's someone out there right now citing this "claim" as evidence that the guy wasn't doing the thing. The nice thing about reporting facts is that it limits reporter bias. The crappy thing about reporting the reporter's own opinions is that it pretty much guarantees bias. The last thing anybody needs in a news report is the reporter saying, "I didn't see anything that makes me think that it happened." But as we all know, the reporter is not our friend.

14th June 2020, 05:00 PM	#193
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,219	Originally Posted by theprestige The sad thing is, there's someone out there right now citing this "claim" as evidence that the guy wasn't doing the thing. No, the sad thing is that we live in the kind of **** up world where this sort of preposterous claim even exists at all. Originally Posted by theprestige The nice thing about reporting facts is that it limits reporter bias. Well actually, it eliminates reporter bias Originally Posted by theprestige The crappy thing about reporting the reporter's own opinions is that it pretty much guarantees bias. The last thing anybody needs in a news report is the reporter saying, "I didn't see anything that makes me think that it happened." That is a very cynical way of looking at it. Originally Posted by theprestige** But as we all know, the reporter is not our friend. You may think you "know" this, but you don't speak for me! I consider the reporter my friend, because without the reporter I am not informed, I would have to rely on the words of Trump and his corrupt minions - all proven liars, every one!
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

14th June 2020, 05:16 PM	#194
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,593	Originally Posted by theprestige To me it reads like meaningless filler. It's supposed to give the impression that something important has been said, but in reality... nothing has been said. It's a subjective inference, an opinion of the reporter. But nobody cares about the reporter's opinion. If all they're going to report is "I'm not sure, but I don't think it happened", then why even bother? The sad thing is, there's someone out there right now citing this "claim" as evidence that the guy wasn't doing the thing. The nice thing about reporting facts is that it limits reporter bias. The crappy thing about reporting the reporter's own opinions is that it pretty much guarantees bias. The last thing anybody needs in a news report is the reporter saying, "I didn't see anything that makes me think that it happened." But as we all know, the reporter is not our friend. Really weak Prestige. No one said Gugino was doing nothing. Just that the idea that he was scanning police communications traffic as an ANTIFA member is absurd and insulting to one's intelligence based on what we know. Trump is POTUS. Not some crazy nutjob in a basement somewhere. The tweet was irresponsible and insane for Trump to tweet it. Trump's stupidity is expected. Defense of Trump's stupidity is expected by nutjobs. It is not expected from anyone with a brain.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 14th June 2020 at 06:15 PM.

14th June 2020, 05:21 PM	#195
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,692	Originally Posted by p0lka I asked a question, an answer would would be nice, then the discussion can move forward. Sure. I can agree that there is a difference between the statement "We have seen no evidence of (insert whatever you like here)." and a direct statement like "He was not doing (whatever you don't want him doing here.) After all, the piece begins with "From the clip, it's not possible to tell what he was doing with the phone". Now, about the "phone". Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,692