Dallas Shooting Crime Scene Investigation (Video)
Conspiracy BurgerEvidence observed in downtown Dallas alongside witness remarks suggest a narrative contrasting with the mass shooting storyline presented by major media.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Dallas Police Shooting: Misinterpreting Visual Evidence?
Some commentators have argued (e.g. here and here) that Dallas Police officers brandished weapons that fired blanks
Close visual analysis may suggest otherwise
MHB Commenter ‘Toni’ https://memoryholeblog.com/2016/07/12/dallas-police-shooting-misinterpreting-visual-evidence/
There’s been conjecture about the above image to which I must take exception. The image, showing police grouped against a wall during the Dallas shooting event, is said to reveal an officer holding an orange training pistol, as well as many red blank-fire adapters attached to several of the weapons.
But close observation tells me that these colorful details are, in fact, visual aberrations that regularly manifest in the kind of low resolution screen grabs that come from a cell phone video, as this appears to be.
Let’s start with the orange pistol. If you magnify that part of the image you will see that the officer’s left hand is resting palm-down on the back of the officer in front of him, making any grip on the alleged gun, which appears to be pointing to the sky, decidedly tenuous.
Underscoring the insecurity of his hold on the so-called pistol is the fact that the officer is not left-handed. If you look at the left hip of the officer in question, you will see his taser holster with the butt of the taser pointing forward, ready for a cross-body grab with the right hand. This means the officer is right-handed and thus unlikely to be holding even a training pistol in his left hand, supposing such a pistol existed in this image, which it does not.
Further magnification of the orange artifact that reads “gun” to the casual glance, shows that the orange color smears to the right, while the hand of the officer has no such smearing. This indicates that the orange is an artifact.
Orange, and especially red, bleeds are very common video artifacts. They can be seen in this image, flaring off some of the other weapons. These artifacts have been identified by the training gun advocates as blank-fire adapters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank-firing_adaptor
But the red adapters are not correctly positioned out at the end of the gun barrel where they should be, as demonstrated in the theorists’ own support evidence. The alleged blank-fire adapters in the Dallas event image are all over the place. On the rifle on the left, the adapters appear to segment the rifle barrel an impossible two times. While in this close-up, one adapter shines from within the hands of an officer, and another adapter rides askew on the mid-barrel of the gun.
And how lucky can one image be to capture the exact moment that the blank-fire adapters on the first officer’s rifle line up perfectly with breaks in the text on the Bank of America sign? Is that serendipitous, or what?
Mocking aside, my interest here is not that someone may have come to a mistaken conclusion. My concern is for credibility; less for that of the theorists, and more for the credibility of those who are uncritically spreading a false story, especially one that’s been artificially told.
I am troubled when there is a question that evidence may have been manipulated to further a certain set of conclusions. In this case, it appears the vivid visual aberrations used to elaborate the orange gun/red adapter stories have been bolstered by turning up the over-all color saturation in the image.
Consider the two pictures below, which have been cropped for comparison. On top is the image circulated by the blank-fire theorists; at bottom is the original image taken from the Wall Street Journal. The manipulation in the top picture is unmistakable. The jacked-up color saturation benefiting the theorists’ version can be seen shining on the faces of everyone in the shot.
Original image from the Wall Street Journal:
Gestapo America: “Warrantless Access to All Your Internet Activity”
In other words, Comey wants to render null and void the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and completely destroy your privacy rights.
The reason Washington wants to know everything about everyone is so that Washington can embarrass, blackmail, and frame on felony charges patriots who stand up in defense of the US Constitution and the rule of law, and dissidents who criticize Washington’s illegal wars, reckless foreign policies, and oppression of American citizens.
Washington’s demand for power has nothing to do with our security. It has to do with destroying the security that the US Constitution gives us.
The security that Comey wants to protect is not our security or the national security of the United States. Comey’s intent is to make Washington secure despite its violations of statutory law and the US Constitution. The way Comey intends to do this is by intimidating, harassing, and arresting Washington’s critics.
Comey wants the unconstitutional power to demand from the providers of telephone and Internet services all records and information about you. These demands are not to be subject to oversight by courts, and the communication companies that serve you are prohibited from telling you that all of your information has been given to the FBI.
US Senators rushed to stick their swords into the Fourth Amendment. John Cornyn slapped an FBI-written amendment on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015. This caused the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International to withdraw their support for the act, which caused the act to be withdrawn.
Senator John McCain rushed to the aid of the FBI. This Constitution-hating senator proposed an amendment to a criminal justice appropriations bill that would use a provision in the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act to grant the unlimited unaccountable power to the FBI to totally destroy your privacy.
McCain’s amendment failed, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R,KY) changed his vote so that he could negate the Senate’s vote with a vote to reconsider.
The FBI’s senators will continue with amendments to legislation, related or not, until they deliver to the FBI the power it wants.
Unfortunately, most Americans today, unlike their forebears, are too ignorant and uneducated to know the value of the privacy rights that our Founding Fathers put in the US Constitution. The imbeciles say nonsense such as: “I haven’t done anything wrong. I have nothing to fear.” God help the imbeciles.
If the American people were sufficiently sophisticated, they perhaps would wonder why such a large chunk of the US Senate had rather represent the FBI than the American people, their constituents who elected them to represent the people in the state, not a police power in Washington.
Why are so many US senators more responsive to the FBI’s desire for Gestapo police power than they are to the civil liberties embodied in the US Constitution?
As the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Defending Dissent Foundation show, the Orlando shootings, the Dallas shootings and whatever shootings, real or staged, next occur have nothing to do with the FBI’s demand to completely destroy all privacy rights of the American people.
http://bordc.org/news/senate-rejects-amendment-expanding-fbi-surveillance-powers-by-narrow-margin/
What’s that I hear? You say you knew nothing about this? Little wonder. Your media consist of people well paid to deceive you and to deliver you into a Police State. To strip you of all constitutional protection and deliver you unprotected to a police state is the function of the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox “News,” CNN, the rest of the presstitute print and TV media and many Internet sites.
Adolf Hitler is alive and well in the United States, and he is fast rising to power.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research, 2016
The DARK Act, “Deny Americans Right to Know”: Congress’ “Compromise” Bill on GMO Labelling of Food, Caves into Pro-GMO Lobby
Kneecaps Vermont GMO Labeling Law
The growing calls by consumer rights groups and concerned citizens for clearly labeling foods produced with genetically modified ingredients suffered a major — potentially grievous — setback Thursday when the Senate passed a so-called compromise bill. Critics say the compromise legislation, originally passed by the House last summer and then tweaked in the Senate, is actually a giant favor to the deep-pocketed pro-GMO-food lobby.
In stark contrast to a robust bill enacted in Vermont on July 1st, which stipulated that genetically-modified foods must be labeled in clear language, the federal law will allow food companies to present the same information in much less accessible forms: on their website, or via a 1-800 phone number, or embedded in a so-called QR Code, basically a barcode that a curious consumer will have to access through a specially designed smart-phone app.
US Capitol Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Navin Rajagopalan / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)
“This is blatantly not a labeling law,” Patty Lovera, assistant director of DC based NGO Food & Water Watch, told WhoWhatWhy. “It’s a poor substitute for actual words on a label, which is what Vermont does.” Indeed, it was designed to block the Vermont initiative, she adds.
“It’s also very elitist, you have to have a smartphone, you have to have an app, you have to have a signal in the grocery store, you have to know how to use it,” she said, joking that a consumer would need another hand to shop, perhaps hold on to their child, while moving down the aisle checking QR codes on a to-be-designed app.
Back in June, ABC News reported that “Nearly everyone, moreover — 93 percent — says the federal government should require labels on food, saying whether it’s been genetically modified, or bio-engineered.”
Since what ABC called such “unanimity of public opinion” is extremely rare, why would the Senate risk voting (65-32) so strongly against a near-consensus of its own constituents?
“It’s also very elitist, you have to have a smartphone, you have to have an app, you have to have a signal in the grocery store, you have to know how to use it,” she said, joking that a consumer would need another hand to shop, perhaps hold on to their child, while moving down the aisle checking QR codes on a to-be-designed app.Lovera said “quite a few bad guys” worked against the popular will in this instance, but points especially to Agricultural Committee chairman Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, and his ally, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat. Chemical and seed giant Monsanto and the anti-labeling Grocery Manufacturer’s Association were allowed to drive the debate in the committee. Their most consistent gripe, purportedly accepted as fact by Roberts and Stabenow, is that a patchwork of state-by-state regulation would have been economically unsustainable.
“There’s tremendous pressure from these industries; they don’t want to comply with the Vermont law,” Lovera told WhoWhatWhy, raising her tone for emphasis. “They want this taken care of.”
US Senators Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow Photo credit: US Department of Agriculture / Flickr and US Department of Agriculture / Flickr
The pro-business Senate vote surprised even some hardened anti-GMO
activists. “I can’t say I am shocked, but I am — shocked! It seemed as
if they had finally given up and little Vermont had won,” Bob Klein of
Safe & Healthy School Food Coalition toldWhoWhatWhy. He explained that there is just too much money globally at stake to let the people in a small state beat US agribusiness.If the House of Representatives follows suit, as expected, the bill will go to the White House for President Obama’s signature. Anti-GMO advocates aren’t optimistic that the president will veto such obviously pro-business legislation.
“Back in the day when he was campaigning he had good language that GMOs should be labeled, but in office his administration has been pro-GMO,” Lovera said. “He could have made the FDA require these labels but he never did, so he did not live up to that campaign promise.” She added, almost as an afterthought, “We’ll have to work on him.”
Klein is less guarded in his assessment. “I have no hope in Obama at all. He is a fake on populist issues.”
The next big battle on this front may bring US agribusiness into conflict with the 28 European countries plus Australia that already require disclosure of genetically modified ingredients on food labels.
Both Lovera and Klein speculated that big-agricultural corporations like Monsanto will look to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a pending international trade deal that would allow corporations to sue sovereign governments for any actions that threaten profits.
“European regulations drive US agribusiness bonkers and they’d love to go after them,” Lovera said.
Obama has been a strong proponent of TTIP from day one.
The original source of this article is who.what.why.
Copyright © Matt Harvey, who.what.why., 2016
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)