Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Here's the OANN broadcast on it. Reminder that the man who believes this is telling the rest of you not to believe your media outlets.
Meanwhile, in Buffalo...
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Here's the OANN broadcast on it. Reminder that the man who believes this is telling the rest of you not to believe your media outlets.
Here's the OANN broadcast on it. Reminder that the man who believes this is telling the rest of you not to believe your media outlets.
WTF are you talking about? I and others said it on here before Trump ever did.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
This got me to thinking about the Iraq stuff. U.S. soldiers patrolled in full "battle rattle" while the Brits went went their berets and light armor. The "complaint" was that the U.S. appeared to be spoiling for a fight while the Brits (having learned from their Northern Ireland experience) conveyed the impression of the "local cop on the beat." Good point, that.
But what wasn't remarked upon was that there was good reason for the U.S. posture: they were shot at/attacked more frequently/more vigorously than the Brits were (at that point). So it probably would have been helpful if the U.S. did a better job of communicating the "why" of their posture (to what degree, though, I don't know. I'm sure Rand or somebody's done a study...?). Anyway, I keep thinking the same here with the police; perhaps they need to communicate (in broad terms) how they conduct business? So no surprises?
I keep mentioning "optics" because much of "this" is info warfare. Part of good info warfare tactics is communication. Also, good comms during info warfare can often help keep the moral high ground.
FWIW
--- End of line (MCP)
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Here's the OANN broadcast on it. Reminder that the man who believes this is telling the rest of you not to believe your media outlets.
If wanting this to be a non-partisan debate is the goal, then not sure citing a dude from Media Matters helps the cause. Your point may be valid, but it would have been significantly bolstered if you linked directly to OANN (because Gertz' full thread on this..., oof.)
I'm not "all in" on what The Conservative Treehouse says (or Breitbart or OANN, or Trump), re: this issue. I'm chiming in (and could be "all in") b/c I know from professional experience what may very well have been done by this "senior citizen" because of his very specific actions. Maybe he didn't do anything other than exercise his 1A rights (however ill-advised) by getting up in the cops' grills. But what I saw showed something more. Will be glad to admit I was wrong if that turns out to be the case.
--- End of line (MCP)
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Trump tweeted @OANN and parroted this stupid conspiracy theory. Trump would rather believe an anonymously written blog post on The Conservative Treehouse and repeated by The Trump News Network (OANN) than admit police ****ed up.
Follow the posts and you'd figure it out.
I could care less about his commentary, I didn't read it and don't care about it. The point wasn't that. It was the fact that Trump continually praises OANN despite its questionable stories, such as this one. The point still stands because the video was the point. I'm sorry that you have an inherent bias towards the source while ignoring the underlying video.
The dude wasn't scanning anything, he, like hundreds or thousands of others, was using his phone as a camera. He didn't have a blood tube, he had a mask on underneath. He didn't fall on purpose, he was pushed and fell.
This all goes back to what you believe Police are. Are they servants to the community and strive to help at every turn, or are they autonomous bots who fall back on "training" everytime something goes wrong? So autonomous that they can't be bothered to deal with that old protester in a protest with what appeared to be approximately 15 people and outnumbering the less-equipped protesters.
IMO, if they are the servants of the community, they don't act like thugs with badges. They don't beat up the people they serve or give out tickets or otherwise use actions or force against someone stricktly because they disagree with it.
And I'm not talking just these protests. These actions are seemingly embedded in our police force. This video I just watched exemplifies today's police officers. One loud mouth who thinks having authority means exact compliance. One who thinks they know the law and will defend that ridiculous position to the death. One who intimidates rather than de-escalates. And the "good cops" who stand around watching their brother in blue do all this and do nothing.
Then YOU Explain what the old man was doing with his Cell Phone waving it around like a magic wand
You call it a "conspiracy theory" despite mountains of evidence because that's what you want to believe. ORANGE MAN BAD!!!
Tool.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I didn't make the claim this guy is some hacker. Why don't YOU explain how a cell phone can pick up or jam radio signals?
Why don't YOU explain how this guy was using his cell phone to intercept encrypted police radio comms without using a SDR dongle and external antenna?
Why don't YOU explain what benefit this gave the old guy considering you can listen to Buffalo Police radio comms anytime you want online.
"Mountains of evidence"?
Like what?Like the blood tube? That, according to you, would be hidden by ANTIFA-dominated medical staff.
Like the scanner/jammer? That, according to GURPS, was scanning radio or cell or something from the cops.
Seriously, what "mountain of evidence" is there on this guy other than "Trump said so"?
His social media posts, for one thing. Or don't your masters let you see news like that?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
You posted a tweet showing a "blood tube". We know from another, better, picture that it was a face mask (like N95) under a surgical mask.
Strike 1.
The Treehouse article says:
The article they use to back up these capablities says it can only be done using an external antenna and SDR dongle. Where are those items in the video? They aren't. Strike 2.
https://www.electronicsforu.com/electronics-projects/software-defined-radio-with-android-smartphones
The Treehouse article claims the Mayor labeled this guy as an "agitator". He didn't. The Mayor was talking about another person, "Myles Carter", on "Bailey Avenue". Gugino's incident happened in Niagra Square. A few miles from Bailey Ave. Strike 3.
Mayor Addresses Police Incident, Contingency Plan
Brown holds Friday news conference to address issues stemming from Thursday protest altercation. Mayor Byron Brown
wben.radio.com
The Hill recognized the discrepancy and issued a correction.
The Treehouse article claimed they have "new video", when it was just a slowed down version of the original.
How many strikes are acceptable to you from your news sources?
All in all, the evidence the Treehouse article used to support the idea he was capturing radio comms comes from 2 things. 1 being another artocle from the same author of the Treehouse article, and the other from the link above showing a dongle. Nothing in the video aligns with their evidence. The only evidence you have the backs your claims is the guy waving his phone around, hence why you can't prove your own hypothesis and are making a claim then putting the onus on someone else to prove you wrong. This is why you are being manipulated. Because you can't take the time to bother to take 30 seconds to verify the claim. You read it, think "seems plausible", and run with it without any verification on your part.
And our President not only believes this, but Tweets it out to the world and tags OANN. He's being manipulated by the media just as much as you are, but it's cool because it's a "Conservative" source.
Show them. Show me where he says "Heading the Buffalo protests today, gonna jam comms!"
You're being manipulated too. You think only left leaning media outlets have a vested interest in manipulating the story to align with their readers, and for that, you will continue to use sources farther and farther from the center of the spectrum which results in this wild, idiotic, claims that are easily debunked by anyone with a modicum of common sense.
Good luck proving it for the reasons I pointed out to GURPS. You have nothing but anecdotal evidence and based on your post history, that's all you need. That's fine, but don't make it seem like anyone who disagrees with the lack of real evidence has "masters". It helps you feel like you're not the crazy one.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
(a) How do you KNOW this? I don't. And as I said in the post reply you replied to I'll be glad to admit I was wrong if it has been shown that his actions weren't problematic. But they haven't. My point was simply that I THINK I know what he was doing and why he was the one doing it from personal experience from my previous life.
(b) I never said he did.
(c) True. But this position ignores his agency in this incident. Like saying it's a truck's fault for hitting me while I stand in the middle of an interstate on a foggy, moonless night.
In the end, we disagree on how bad the police are and the extent of the problem. Fair enough.
--- End of line (MCP)
Last edited: