Boy I hope you feel a little silly for being so insistent. Did you learn anything?Says the guy who doesn't vote.
Especially since other sources have the same photo without the trail.Which sources?
Says the guy who doesn't vote.I've been pretty open about the fact that I don't vote. It's kinda interesting that you're just now commenting on it like it's news.
It's pretty interesting that you expect people to take you seriously when you don't care.I care enough to comment. I don't care enough to vote.
I care enough to comment. I don't care enough to vote.Which means your comments aren't well thought out.
Which sources?
Which means your comments aren't well thought out.You are welcome to form your own opinions. I'm not gonna argue with you about it.
The earlier post by the NYT, which somebody quoted in a Tweet specifically because the picture did not have the bullet streak in it, and only ended up changing after they replaced the photo.I'm going to need some citations and such for this, because a lot has been posted and I don't actually know what you're referring to here. One step at a time.
The earlier post by the NYT, which somebody quoted in a Tweet specifically because the picture did not have the bullet streak in it, and only ended up changing after they replaced the photo. It's literally even referenced in this very topic, and even made Fin, himself, doubt things and admitted I may be right, at the time.Yes I posted a link to a tweet of a guy posting a photo in the comments of the original tweet, but he is corrected in the replies to his own tweet and accepts it when told it was a direct link to the NYT site.
The photographer, himself, hasn't acknowledged the photo, despite posting others and being constantly tagged. No other real news source, not even right wing sources, are referencing said photo, remotely, despite the fact that, if it were real, it'd be one hell of a million in one photo.
You don't find that a little bit odd?
I don't actually know what you're referring to here.If you had skin in the game, you might know.
This was in the comments, you may be right. I can't check because I don't have a NYT accountPost #57.
https://twitter.com/JordanFifer/status/1812295002434777283
Post #57.no, go to the tweet and click on the picture. it links directly to the nyt page. You just cant see it because it's low res in the tweet lol
It really is odd that the same pictures exist without the bullet.
Edit: Maybe?
If you had skin in the game, you might know.Oh. You're just doing that thing that people sometimes do.
Yes I posted a link to a tweet of a guy posting a photo in the comments of the original tweet, but he is corrected in the replies to his own tweet and accepts it when told it was a direct link to the NYT site.
It really is odd that the same pictures exist without the bullet.Where? It's in both sets in the same spot.
In the comments in question, the original poster simply says she "Took a screenshot directly of the NYT site," implying she didn't alter the photo, and all the person who posted about the differing photos replies with is "Thank you." Why the different photos existed, in the first place, is never accounted for.
no, go to the tweet and click on the picture. it links directly to the nyt page. You just cant see it because it's low res in the tweet lol
the guy in the tweet acknowledges his mistake in the replies
it's in the link on the tweet. To a NYT page of live updates about 2 hours back, submitted by the NYT reporter she credited in the tweetJust checked it and I can confirm that it is 100% real, so the other guy who claimed it was fake was, ironically, the one who faked his photo.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/13/us/biden-trump-election
Just checked it and I can confirm that it is 100% real, so the other guy who claimed it was fake was, ironically, the one who faked his photo.yeah the picture in the tweet by the guy questioning it is actually a low res picture of a link directly to the NYT site. So this is literally the only version of the picture that exists. Which is awesome
Here is a direct link
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/13/world/13trump-shooting-combo/13trump-shooting-combo-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp
In the comments in question, the original poster simply says she "Took a screenshot directly of the NYT site," implying she didn't alter the photo, and all the person who posted about the differing photos replies with is "Thank you." Why the different photos existed, in the first place, is never accounted for. The only thing acknowledged is that the NYT site, within the last hour, has the bullet photo. It's never answered why only THEY have the photo, and why literally nobody else, photographer included, is acknowledging it, despite it being a miracle of a photograph, if it really did capture the bullet.Its not a smoke trail or bullet time, its debris picked up on its course; human tissue. The camera also likely was a high end camera taking numerous shots per second; its fairly common to have at a big press event. Thats how they get those perfect high quality facial expressions that they like to run with.
Its not a smoke trail or bullet time, its debris picked up on its course; human tissue. The camera also likely was a high end camera taking numerous shots per second; its fairly common to have at a big press event. Thats how they get those perfect high quality facial expressions that they like to run with.
Those are my theories that could explain the picture, but I really dont have any investment in this one.
The shooter apparently used an AR, not a sniper rifle.Thats not very helpful information. An AR is an Armalite Rifle, most commonly referring to the AR-15 design, and less commonly the AR-10 design. An AR-15 can only chamber intermediate cartridges due to dimensional limitations (and once those are altered its no longer an AR-15). Such a round could be used effectively at that range, but it would be a poor choice due to sectional density and drop off; especially out of a rotating bolt rifle, which are inherently less accurate.
Thats not very helpful information. An AR is an Armalite Rifle, most commonly referring to the AR-15 design, and less commonly the AR-10 design. An AR-15 can only chamber intermediate cartridges due to dimensional limitations (and once those are altered its no longer an AR-15). Such a round could be used effectively at that range, but it would be a poor choice due to sectional density and drop off; especially out of a rotating bolt rifle, which are inherently less accurate.It was apparently specifically an AR-15 type rifle.
A proper AR-10 is unlikely too, as theyre expensive to build and expensive to buy. More likely would be a DPMS LR-308 if it was built or Knights Armament SR-25 if it was bought, which are both based on the same design but modified to be different. Of course thats only if they wanted something that still had an AR design with a larger caliber round.
Meanwhile, a sniper rifle is simply a term LEO and military give to whatever rifle they plan to snipe people with. There really is no definition because its a term to describe function and not defined by armament.
With so many topics, and way too much news, can someone just tl:dr what we do know for certain on the latest WTFness?
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/54bb147e.jpgThis guy gets it. Dems need to condemn the shit out of this and extend an olive branch about curbing gun violence and see what assholes still refuse to play ball.
This guy gets it. Dems need to condemn the shit out of this and extend an olive branch about curbing gun violence and see what assholes still refuse to play ball.They will just say "How dare you politicize this shooting." Then vote no, and demand more guns. Republicans have never needed to have a good reason to vote against gun legislation.
If the shooter identity hasn't been confirmed does that mean social media rushed and put out the wrong name/photo out there with that Mark Violets stuff?
If the shooter identity hasn't been confirmed does that mean social media rushed and put out the wrong name/photo out there with that Mark Violets stuff?
Dead shooter photo didnt seem fat like the Mark person whos pic and info was all over the place.
Police about to hold a press conference:
Live now
https://www.youtube.com/live/szm4fJLaQUU?feature=shared
I just want to see the seethe compilations again like 2016. It's going to be gloriousGet this shit out of here.
Doesn't sound like they're gonna say much. Saying they're still trying to ID the shooter.
Mark Violets stuff is 100% fake.
I just want to see the seethe compilations again like 2016. It's going to be glorious
Looks like those intial reports about it being a BB Gun was also false too.Those were obviously wrong even as they were being made. It sounded nothing at all like a BB gun.
don't know if i can link it, but tmz has video of the shooter taking a shot(s)
Crazy. I mean, a ton of people apparently saw the guy and they're yelling before he shoots. WTF man?Someone seriously fucked up with the security at the event.