I have trouble with this one still being in effect. If he didn’t turn his head at that exact moment, it would’ve been fatal. Now, you can say God was involved, but not Q alone. And yes, he was a target.
Who told you that? Some random "expert?" When did we start believing them? How do you even know there was a bullet? Because of a picture? Who showed you that picture? Who had the high speed video running at the exact right moment?
A movie is believable because all of the necessary cues you need to believe it are added into the script. If they are not added into the script we say "there are holes in the script."
Let's assume for a moment that this event was scripted. If there were holes in this script it could destroy the benefits for Trump (of which this event has a metric fuckton). Jessie Smollett's false flag, which would have been beneficial for him if it had succeeded, was destroyed by exactly such holes in the script. I suggest they were put there on purpose. I suggest it is possible to do the opposite, fill in the gaps to make a believable movie.
Do you honestly believe such ad hominems and false groupings help you make your case better?
Not that I mean to suggest you actually made a case. You simply proclaimed an ad hominem, attempted to group me with a group that you think are "automatically wrong", didn't address a single thing I said, and implied "incredulity" at an opinion that differs from your own.
I suggest if you want to make a case to promote your opinion or belief, you should try to actually make one..
I think it is highly likely that the assassination was a white hat scripted event. I have made that case a few dozen times over the past few days. If you wish to see what I have said on the matter, feel free to read my history. Having said that:
if you agree with the leftists
This is a false grouping. It doesn't matter what "group" someone belongs to or may agree with. All that matters is evidence and logic. Attempting to group me with someone you don't like is a fallacious argument (specifically an association fallacy). My argument is my argument and it stands (or doesn't) on it's own. This is true regardless of who else may espouse a similar conclusion.
Association fallacies are among the worst (or at least among the most common fallacies), and are what drive The Matrix. We have been trained to make such fallacious arguments all our lives; in school, in books, in the media, etc.. Unlearning this training is essential to the GA.
Ok, so if I'd left out "agree with leftists", you wouldn't have taken such umbrage?
Granted, they believe it due to massive TDS, while you believe it via (purportedly - I haven't read your history, yet) logic and evidence, but you believe the same thing:
Donald Trump faked this assassination attempt in order to get elected.
So, it's not at all a false grouping - you believe what the leftists believe, and playing nuance with your words doesn't change that.
In case you're unsure, I'm NOT arguing with you. I honestly don't know what to believe, now that the initial emotional shock has subsided. As I mentioned, you're the first on this side of the aisle that I've seen with that take, and I'm looking forward to reading your previous comments.
One more question before I dig into your history: If the Q team staged a fake assassination attempt, how are we any better than the cabal? If you're right, then both sides are simply creating fake events to instill fear in the populace for political gain.
This is an association fallacy. Whether it is true or not is 100% irrelevant to any logical argument, that is why it is a fallacy. It is used to bolster an argument (or just an opinion if you prefer) through an appeal to pathos, which is, by definition, an illogical argument (not an appeal to logos).
If the Q team staged a fake assassination attempt, how are we any better than the cabal?
It's a bit of a read, but you are welcome to read this response to a similar question I gave earlier today. Note it is in two parts, though the second part is a fair bit shorter. Like I said, it's a bit of a read, but I believe it will fully answer your question.
I think Q and most everyone else knew that was false. JFK proved that was false many years earlier.
That may have been for the benefit of those that would try. Art of War: It is not what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Obviously, they didn't buy it. This is not the first and likely not the last attempt.
Either the White Hats are vulnerable or compromised. This was too big a clustermuck to ignore. No way Trump takes that stage with limited protection. His operatives failed him, simple.
Has anyone yet verified that photograph of the bullet going by Trump?
I'm interested in finding out if it was real.
Assuming it was taken with an ultra HD video camera, the fastest normal video speed, even for recording sports, is 60 frames per second. If the video recording was made at 4K UHD and reasonable speed more for standard filming for TV or internet posting (or news reporting), it would be 30 frames per second.
Assuming the bullet has a velocity of 3,200 feet per second, which is typical for an AR-15 with .223 ammunition. At 60 frames per second, the bullet would spend 0.01666 seconds between video frames. During each video frame, the bullet would travel 53.33 feet.
Using Trump's head for scale, which may be 8" to 10" front to back in that video capture image. Zoomed in like that, the bullet would leave essentially a streak across the photo 53.33 feet length. The bullet streak in the photo, from start to finish, doesn't seem like it's longer than possibly 6 feet at most, even when assuming using high speed UHD camera at 60 frames per second.
If the video camera captured it at a more typical 30 frames per second, the bullet would travel 106.66 feet between frames, so it would have appeared as nothing but a line going across the entire video frame. There would be no bullet detail... but just a solid streak line from edge to edge of the video.
Can someone prove me wrong?
Even if the video camera was operating at a VERY high 120 frames per second (which would only be needed if you wanted to play back in slow motion for some reason). the bullet would still travel more than 26 feet between frames. Again, it doesn't look like the bullet streak in the photo is more than 6 foot length maximum. The camera operator would have to be shooting at 500 frames per second to even make the image look like what was captured on film. At that speed, the images would be dark and the video result would look terrible, plus it would require an enormous amount of digital memory.
Any camera bugs out there that want to chime in? Was the photo of bullet passing by Trump possible? Does that look realistic to you?
I have trouble with this one still being in effect. If he didn’t turn his head at that exact moment, it would’ve been fatal. Now, you can say God was involved, but not Q alone. And yes, he was a target.
Exactly. Insulated from what? And during what time period?
It can't possibly mean "insulated from every bad thing that will ever happen". Sorry, that's just not possible.
With God all things are possible.
Q clearly has a line to God.
Who told you that? Some random "expert?" When did we start believing them? How do you even know there was a bullet? Because of a picture? Who showed you that picture? Who had the high speed video running at the exact right moment?
A movie is believable because all of the necessary cues you need to believe it are added into the script. If they are not added into the script we say "there are holes in the script."
Let's assume for a moment that this event was scripted. If there were holes in this script it could destroy the benefits for Trump (of which this event has a metric fuckton). Jessie Smollett's false flag, which would have been beneficial for him if it had succeeded, was destroyed by exactly such holes in the script. I suggest they were put there on purpose. I suggest it is possible to do the opposite, fill in the gaps to make a believable movie.
A script without holes.
perfectly written and well said!
Yes.
Patriots truly are in control.
So, just like the leftists, you believe the Trump assassination attempt was faked?
Do you honestly believe such ad hominems and false groupings help you make your case better?
Not that I mean to suggest you actually made a case. You simply proclaimed an ad hominem, attempted to group me with a group that you think are "automatically wrong", didn't address a single thing I said, and implied "incredulity" at an opinion that differs from your own.
I suggest if you want to make a case to promote your opinion or belief, you should try to actually make one..
Not making a case at all (why are you adding your own context to my simple question?)
I just want to know if you agree with the leftists we all see on social media claiming that the assassination attempt was faked?
I think it is highly likely that the assassination was a white hat scripted event. I have made that case a few dozen times over the past few days. If you wish to see what I have said on the matter, feel free to read my history. Having said that:
This is a false grouping. It doesn't matter what "group" someone belongs to or may agree with. All that matters is evidence and logic. Attempting to group me with someone you don't like is a fallacious argument (specifically an association fallacy). My argument is my argument and it stands (or doesn't) on it's own. This is true regardless of who else may espouse a similar conclusion.
Association fallacies are among the worst (or at least among the most common fallacies), and are what drive The Matrix. We have been trained to make such fallacious arguments all our lives; in school, in books, in the media, etc.. Unlearning this training is essential to the GA.
Ok, so if I'd left out "agree with leftists", you wouldn't have taken such umbrage?
Granted, they believe it due to massive TDS, while you believe it via (purportedly - I haven't read your history, yet) logic and evidence, but you believe the same thing:
Donald Trump faked this assassination attempt in order to get elected.
So, it's not at all a false grouping - you believe what the leftists believe, and playing nuance with your words doesn't change that.
In case you're unsure, I'm NOT arguing with you. I honestly don't know what to believe, now that the initial emotional shock has subsided. As I mentioned, you're the first on this side of the aisle that I've seen with that take, and I'm looking forward to reading your previous comments.
One more question before I dig into your history: If the Q team staged a fake assassination attempt, how are we any better than the cabal? If you're right, then both sides are simply creating fake events to instill fear in the populace for political gain.
This is an association fallacy. Whether it is true or not is 100% irrelevant to any logical argument, that is why it is a fallacy. It is used to bolster an argument (or just an opinion if you prefer) through an appeal to pathos, which is, by definition, an illogical argument (not an appeal to logos).
It's a bit of a read, but you are welcome to read this response to a similar question I gave earlier today. Note it is in two parts, though the second part is a fair bit shorter. Like I said, it's a bit of a read, but I believe it will fully answer your question.
I think Q and most everyone else knew that was false. JFK proved that was false many years earlier.
That may have been for the benefit of those that would try. Art of War: It is not what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Obviously, they didn't buy it. This is not the first and likely not the last attempt.
Legal target. But I can see the confusion.
Either the White Hats are vulnerable or compromised. This was too big a clustermuck to ignore. No way Trump takes that stage with limited protection. His operatives failed him, simple.
Clusterduck and beyond ,, you’re correct Fren !
That was in 2017. Trump is always in danger!
Has anyone yet verified that photograph of the bullet going by Trump?
I'm interested in finding out if it was real.
Assuming it was taken with an ultra HD video camera, the fastest normal video speed, even for recording sports, is 60 frames per second. If the video recording was made at 4K UHD and reasonable speed more for standard filming for TV or internet posting (or news reporting), it would be 30 frames per second.
Assuming the bullet has a velocity of 3,200 feet per second, which is typical for an AR-15 with .223 ammunition. At 60 frames per second, the bullet would spend 0.01666 seconds between video frames. During each video frame, the bullet would travel 53.33 feet.
Using Trump's head for scale, which may be 8" to 10" front to back in that video capture image. Zoomed in like that, the bullet would leave essentially a streak across the photo 53.33 feet length. The bullet streak in the photo, from start to finish, doesn't seem like it's longer than possibly 6 feet at most, even when assuming using high speed UHD camera at 60 frames per second.
If the video camera captured it at a more typical 30 frames per second, the bullet would travel 106.66 feet between frames, so it would have appeared as nothing but a line going across the entire video frame. There would be no bullet detail... but just a solid streak line from edge to edge of the video.
Can someone prove me wrong?
Even if the video camera was operating at a VERY high 120 frames per second (which would only be needed if you wanted to play back in slow motion for some reason). the bullet would still travel more than 26 feet between frames. Again, it doesn't look like the bullet streak in the photo is more than 6 foot length maximum. The camera operator would have to be shooting at 500 frames per second to even make the image look like what was captured on film. At that speed, the images would be dark and the video result would look terrible, plus it would require an enormous amount of digital memory.
Any camera bugs out there that want to chime in? Was the photo of bullet passing by Trump possible? Does that look realistic to you?
Video Photo of Bullet
excellent high effort write up.
Motion blur has more to do with the shutter speed than framerate.
You can vary the shutter speed relative to the framerate any which way you want, to produce more or less blur.
But apparently it was a photo and not a video? Those odds are indeed very low.
either way, I believe this was faked.
Insulated but a bullet was an inch from his brain THat's hard to take serious
u/#q4