You can't see "it." You are complaining about things you can't see because you imagine you should see them. I have been explaining the facts about pistols and discharges. They spoil your imaginary world. You get frustrated and angry. At me. Is it any plainer?
Meanwhile, I have been shooting pistols of different calibers for decades. I have no need to make things up when you evidently find the facts to be fantastic.
Just above the gun is totally clear. The background is blurry, but that is because it is out of focus.
Your entire line of logic hinges on the question of why and how the IDF was caught napping, which has yet to be determined. Meanwhile, what are you saying? That Israel should be recumbent before unparalleled terrorist attacks? It is precisely like saying, upon the Pearl Harbor attack, that we should just suck it up. The culpability of that one was suspected long ago. My father, who fought in World War II (antisubmarine warfare in the Atlantic Ocean before the war was even declared) told me that it was generally suspected that FDR had provoked the Japanese to an incident---but that they figured it would be only the Philippines, not including Hawaii. So, yes, I know all about sinister turns of policy, but in this case it changes very little. Hamas are murdering mad dogs and Israel needs to wipe them out. If somebody is culpable in releasing mad dogs, they need to be tried for treason.
As to my bona fides, part of my career was designing laser weapons, as I have stated repeatedly. The "technology" has been around for half a century. But there are no satellites with ground-facing laser weapons. They turned out to be too big and essentially impossible to deploy. Using them on ground targets was a non-starter, as they were entirely unreliable for that purpose. (The beam would be blocked by clouds or smoke.) That was back in the 1980s. I wrote the proposal for YAL-1A, the only laser weapon mounted on an airplane and demonstrated successfully (now scrapped). Compared to me, you know zero.
"Rods of God" are only science fiction devices. They would be ineffective and they were not developed any further than Jerry Pournelle's idea. (No process for turning kinetic energy into an explosion. They would simply penetrate into the ground, like penetrating tank shells.) Very nasty hazard once their orbit decayed and they came down unguided. I looked for what you referenced but only had hits that were totally off target, or went to speculatory articles. Easy to tell when someone has no clue, as they often show the weapon being boosted in the direction of orbit. If that were the case, they would go into higher orbit and never hit the ground. In order to hit the ground, they would need to be decelerated backward, opposite to the direction the "rod" is pointing. Orbital mechanics. Not for wannabees.
To say that technology was used that would never have been required and not available, costing major expense if it had been, and referring to imaginary weapons exposes your ignorance and your motivation: myth making.
I know. They are on this page all the time. "If you can't see it, I can't help you see it."
You talk about motives, not about how what took place happened. I still think the Hamas-photographers handshake is the simplest. I have seen other news that the photographers were simply Hamas to begin with. Right now, it is redounding to the support of Hamas, as reflected by the startling degree of popular support.
No, I enter the conversation as someone not brainwashed by a preconceived narrative. You have worked yourself into the typical paranoic pose that anyone who is not with you is against you. As regards Lahaina, I consider the idea of space lasers to be absolutely nuts. Quite aside from the technical likelihood (zero), it is absurd to think that advanced technology was something that needed to be used instead of a kitchen match or cigarette lighter. On other points, melted aluminum wheels have been found in other runaway forest fires. (All four wheels being melted would be inconsistent with a laser that can fire from only one direction.) And roofs of all colors were either burnt or not. (I think most blue roofs were of homes that were nowhere near the fire.)
What status? I never had the Vaxx. How are you so masterful at being ignorant? I was pro-hydroxychloroquine before it became popular.
That's because it is not obvious---because it is not fake. What is fake is the idea that you can tell the difference. Frankly, all you guys ride in on your imagination and expectation of what you should see, without any real exposure to what these things look like in reality.
I am not a shill, but in various subjects I am an expert, and am not diffident about it. You guys are really annoyed with anyone who really knows what they are talking about...and casts shade on your favorite baby.
I happen to know how these things work. And I have read decades worth of gun magazines with their photos of shell casings in flight. You are straining at a gnat. Upon closer examination, it turns out that the shell image is slightly out of focus, being closer to the camera. There is no sideways smear that would be due to motion.
By the way, I believe my second quote was in regard to the shooter's expression.
Oh, I have an acronym. I hadn't known. But you guys all respond to reality through your own paranoia. So, in an ironic way, it is a "psyop"...for you.
More like the question should be directed at you. I've done lots of shooting over decades.
I have a brain and I use it. I am also trained in system analysis. Human psychology is a very complex system, but it does have cause and effect.
If they are absurd, surely you would have the means to explain why...
Various 9mm, .38 Super, .40 S&W, .45 Auto, 10mm, 7.62x25mm Tokarev, .38 Special. .357 Magnum. Double-action & single-action. Double-stack & single-stack. Semi-auto & revolver. I find it curious that I can state something that is simply true and someone like you finds it necessary to call me a liar.
No visible smoke. it seems to me you haven't done any shooting or have seen any pistols actually being fired. Under the right circumstances you might be able to see a bit of flame at the muzzle, but that is usually in night conditions.
The brass shell didn't get up in the air because pixies carried it. That is the typical trajectory of an ejected shell...and it doesn't happen unless the shell is ejected...which doesn't happen unless the gun is fired. You simply have no idea how fast all this action is. If the muzzle velocity is ~1000 fps and the barrel length is ~4 inches, the transit time is something like 0.3 milliseconds. Is that a typical camera speed?
What's your point? The slide is returning. The shell is only about half as distant as the one in the original post, which means that would have been enough time in the OP for the slide to close.
I've been there and done that, and am well connected. You can't even spit out who is throwing spears at whom, which would settle the argument conclusively. Have you actually seen anything...or just picked it up from somewhere?
This started out with you disparaging Africans as not being capable of civilization. Counterexamples blow your argument away. Smug arrogance is your self-projection.
That is an expectable file size for a photo, which may have many thousands of pixels, each one having hundreds of bits to encode color and brightness.
He's aiming, but not using the sights. (You can see that his line of sight is parallel to the barrel axis.) This used to be a feature of sharpshooting demonstrations. If the distance is not too far, it is effective. When the action is fast, do you think you have time to draw a steady bead and fire like you are at a shooting range?
Open a gun magazine. See the photos of shells being ejected. The timing of the photo is probably from the received sound of the gunshot. There is no "look" that one has when shooting a weapon.
Too bad for your expectations. There is no preferred "look."
Visible smoke not a possibility. First, it is called smokeless powder for a reason. Second, it is being ejected from the barrel at the speed of the bullet (~1000 feet per second), or even faster from rapid expansion. The case is moving much slower than the bullet. When shooting, it is common to be aware of the case motion (sometimes it hits you in the forehead). I have seldom been aware of smoke from an immediate shot.
You have an imaginary conception of what the proper shooting stance should be, and there is nothing about his stance that is contrary to proper shooting posture. Relaxed is a good way to be. Being tensed up leads to a poor shot.
The cameraman was lucky to get the shot, but being lucky does not mean impossible.
Lots of photos of ejected shells in the gun magazines. I've never seen a blurred one. The camera is fast enough to capture that.
The action of a semi-automatic pistol is FAST. Just because the camera did not catch it does not mean it did not happen. And there is no way the case could have been ejected without the action of the slide. There is no indication the operator's hand is "relaxed." It looks to have a firm grip on the weapon, which is all you need. The reason modern gunpowder is called "smokeless powder" is because (wait for it) there is little visible smoke. And what there might have been would have been blown out of the camera field of view. And just because you couldn't find this photo means only---that you couldn't find this photo.
I've shot pistols of all kinds over the years. Don't go down the imaginary trail of things you don't know about.
I don't have any interest in voting for Ramaswamy, but who else there had the balls to say what he did? I'm glad he said it. (And those who say it was scripted, provide the script. Otherwise, it is just fantasy.)
The simplest hypothesis is that Hamas reached out and "recruited" sympathetic freelance photographers in advance, and had them in place, pending the date of the actual operation, when they were infiltrated into the battle scenes. Then the photographers sold their coverage to the highest---or most agreeable---bidder. Modern news media have long ago sold their souls for access to on-the-scene coverage early in the news cycle.
Who, exactly? And where? I've been to Africa. I have a family and relations in Zambia and Zimbabwe. I have a parish friend who travels often to Namibia, and another one who is from Tanzania. Other acquaintances from Uganda and Kenya and Malawi. I think I prefer to believe what I have seen and known from the people who live there. I've seen photos of the major African cities, all of them quite modern.
I assume you are not referring to traditional athletic contests...just as one would not refer to Olympic javelin throwing or fencing matches.
When I was in high school (in Puget Sound), some classmates went on a field trip to New York City. The local kids there regaled them with questions about how hard it was to live in the wild forests, and whether the Indians still attacked us with bows and arrows. They were in complete earnest. My classmates were flabbergasted that these kids could be so ignorant of the rest of the country. My wife runs into similar ignorant questions about Africa, as though everyone lived in the veldt. And now I have run into such wonderful insight from you.
It is real. You, on the other hand, want it to be unreal. I happen to have direct personal experience that confirms the photograph, and I don't back away from it. You happen to have a collection of cartoon concepts of what you "expect" from your imagination. So, the paranoia kicks in and you insult me and declare ME to be fake. As a result, because of unwarranted attention by the moderators, I have to walk around on eggs precisely as though I were in a mental asylum filled with thin-skinned inmates..