Hello my fellow patriots. I know this is something that seems to be accepted but I saw some debate about it earlier today. I have done research on this and came across this website and the person has done some really great research on it and provides a sufficient amount of evidence and references: https://write-aholic.com/why-didnt-biden-get-a-presidential-battery-salute/
Biden did not receive a Presidential 21-gun salute.
From my own findings here is what I found that I didn't see in the article above: During ceremonies, the platoon fires 3-inch antitank guns mounted on a 105-mm howitzer chassis. Three-man crews, consisting of a watchman (time keeper), loader and gunner, fire at intervals from three to eight seconds, depending on the type of ceremony. from: https://home.army.mil/jbmhh/index.php/teamJBMHH/units-tenants/TOG/presidential-salute-battery
Only two were fired for Biden. The intervals were not 3-8 seconds. That was not a standard Presidential 21 Gun Salute.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
Military regulations are layered like onions.
The document you link, which I had already read specifies 3 second intervals, 5 second intervals, but never 9 second intervals (3-3), yet here we are with 9 second intervals. What gives? Does the military just not care? No, it's because we don't have the docs for Arlington, or for the 3rd infantry, or for anything else we can't even know that we don't know exist. Which is why you can't point to this one document and ignore the video evidence.
We have clear convention, which whether we have the regs for or not implies a given regulation of battery number and interval. You do not falsify the premise by noting an absence of supporting regulation (absence of the regs is not evidence the reg does not exist) but by finding evidence contrary to the convention; where are the videos of Obama, or Regan, on Bush getting 2+1@9sec salutes? Where are the videos of foreign dignitaries receiving 3+1@3sec salutes?
Do you understand everything I just wrote? If you won't take the test (even for your own purposes) can you summarize my argument back to me? Summarize my argument and we'll go from there.
Can you either summarize my position so I'm sure that you understand what you're refuting, or screenshot your results so I can retailor it so you can understand it? One or the other.
I have not responded with ad homs, I am not calling you retarded, I am asking you to distinguish the reality of where you fall on a bell curve so I can tailor my arguments productively.
Ok, see that was helpful. You're getting about half the argument. It's not just because Biden's looks different from others, and that it looks like a foreign dignitaries. Let's talk hypothesis testing:
A hypothesis is basically anything that fits the available facts. The military having many variations fits the facts, including regs you cite. But likewise, the military having distinct variations also fits the facts -
(your regs aren't the beginning or end. It reads more like a summary than the definitive article because it leaves way to much in the air, from type of cannon, to uniform dress, to procedure in setup, administration, adjudication and so on. I'm not saying this is so, but I am saying the available facts do not reject it. It would be entirely consistent with the onion like layers on military regs that no, you aren't going to just find in a google search)
That aside, we have two hypothesis. You test hypothesis by falsifying them. You find ways in which one or the other is not true, not less true, or more likely to be true. That your hypothesis isn't rejected by the regs you found is not proof your hypothesis is right, for example.
The way to falsify the distinct variations hypothesis is to find instances in which these distinctions do not carry. If they are not distinct, there should be other examples of POTUS with unusual 21 gun variations, and other examples of dignitaries receiving the 3+1@3 variation. We can reject the hypothesis when we find an example inconsistent with it.
The way to falsify the many variations hypothesis is much the same - finding examples inconsistent with it. A regulation explicitly stating only one variation for each case would certainly work, but we can falsify it in the same way as the previous - Evidence of convention is evidence against there being no convention; If every president is saluted in one way, and all dignitaries saluted in another, then you can reject the many variations hypothesis.
Do you see why now I say that the regs aren't important? Additional regs would be nice, because they could serve to falsify, by simply having a set that a given hypothesis isn't falsified in does help us narrow it down. The video evidence does. And while I'd love more examples, what we have are enough.
If you'd have just sent me a screenshot I'd have known if this is still over your head or not. But do you understand hypothesis testing? Do understand the goal is not to affirm a hypothesis, but reject them? Do you understand that the regs you found don't help in that? Do you see why the video evidence we have argues for distinct variations rather than many?