What you don't know can't hurt them.
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=36313
Probably not. I'm not sure I care much for your phrasing of it. The premise doesn't seem to reflect any statement I've made on the thread. And it's kind of a dumb question.Canadian_watcher wrote: Will you answer that question?
I guess they might, if they had other grounds. But there would then be (a) other grounds; and (b) a chance for that person to answer the questioning and go home without further consequences or permanent injury to his reputation, if innocent.Canadian_watcher wrote:I shouldn't have said "arrested" I should have said detained / brought in for questioning.compared2what? wrote:Assuming that they're not framing that someone: No, they don't. Or not in a way that's equivalent to relying on that video. If the suspect is identifiable on video to a standard not set by them but by forensic science, that's an identification. And if not, not.does law enforcement rely on grainy security cam imagery to make arrests when they've already got a suspicion about someone based on circumstance? Yes. They do
I'm not a forensic expert, so I don't know. But you know perfectly well that my point was that if that process isn't crooked, they use professional forensic photo-ID techniques, which are codified professionally. And not by them, at their discretion.But how fascinating! What's the forensic scientific threshold of for positive suspect ID on grainy security camera footage in your state? I can't find it written down anywhere in Canadian Law.
Obviously, the consequences aren't the same. But that doesn't mean there are none.guess what - I can't frame anyone. I have no authority. If you seriously think that my debating something on the internet - something as innocuous as "doesn't that guy look like Gene Rosen!>?" is DANGEROUS, then let me tell you lady, you're living in the right country at the right time.compared2what? wrote:And if there's any boundary line separating which hardball tactics you're okay with using and which not, "techniques for framing the innocent" is pretty damn clearly on the wrong side of it...
Well. First of all, this...fwiw I thought Gene Rosen's witness account of Sandy Hook was very very weird. But clearly that's basically neither here nor there.compared2what? wrote:I don't agree. Your real response, unmediated by videos and MSM both, is worth a lot more attention than either, I mean, "you, Canadian_watcher," in this case. But also, "you, everyone."
if I read that right, then yes - I agree - our immediate responses to these things are valuable. However, it seems to me that we can get the shit kicked out of us for sharing what those reactions are 'round these parts. I submit as evidence the untouchable status accorded St. Robbie Parker some months back
An example of the capabilities of the BSC [British Security Coordination] operation was in the forgeries that it was able to effect. The skilled labor to produce this high quality work was, by the latter part of 1941, housed in a BSC forgery factory in downtown Toronto, Canada. It was called Station M, perhaps after its chief, Eric Maschwitz(cover symbol G.106). Station M, which opened in the summer of 1941, was under cover of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation.
Evidence needed to frame Britain's enemies or move the United States closer to war could be and was indeed manufactured. This was truly a frontal assault on the rules of evidence. In addition to "an industrial chemist, and two ruffians who could reproduce faultlessly the imprint of any typewriter on Earth," Maschwitz later wrote, "I controlled a chemical laboratory in one place, a photographic studio in another."
A newly released document stamped MOST SECRET wonderfully illustrates Eric Maschwitz's willingness to do whatever necessary to move the United States toward war. One problem facing British intelligence in the United States was a shortage of good photographs of German atrocities. On November 26, 1941, in a memorandum titled "Atrocity Photographs," Maschwitz proposed a solution. "If asked to do so, my section could quite easily provide a regular supply of atrocity pictures, manufactured by us in Canada." Most problems seemed small and quite solvable, "the buying and hiring of costumes, the manufacture of small pieces of scenery and of dummies...a first class make up man...all of which could be carried out under some sort of cover.
"For the sake of accuracy," Maschwitz continued, "we should be provided...with as complete a library as possible of photographs of German personnel, equipment, vehicles...also actual specimens of German...equipment..."
Only one problem loomed in G.106's fertile brain, and it had nothing to do with the propriety of duping the American public. If the project was to be done they had better get busy. "The most obvious setting for atrocity pictures at the moment is Russia, so that we should get to work while there is snow in Canada."
Clearly the major purpose of BSC was to conduct aggressive offensive operations against those it saw as the enemies of Britain. These included not only Hitler's agents in the United States, but those who simply wished to remain uninvolved in the European war.
Ernest Cuneo summed up the BSC offensive in a memo:
"Given the time, the situation, and the mood, it is not surprising however, the BSC also went beyond the legal, the ethical, and the proper. Throughout the neutral Americas, and especially in the U.S., it ran espionage agents, tampered with the mails, tapped telephones, smuggled propaganda into the country, disrupted public gatherings, covertly subsidized newspapers, radios, and organizations, perpetrated forgeries-even passing one off the President of the United States-violated the aliens registration act, shanghaied sailors numerous times, and possibly murdered one or more persons in this country."
This is a good point. Why don't any of these people ever defend themselves? I'm not being faceitous - I don't remember ever seeing anyone ever come out and say, look here's me in college, here's me three weeks ago. I went to this high school and here's my yearbook or whatever. I do, however, see this happening when it's the other way around - take for example Tamerlan's/Dzokar's mother in the Boston incident. She's desperately trying to prove that the family isn't the family the press says it is. It's curious to me.compared2what? wrote:I guess they might, if they had other grounds. But there would then be (a) other grounds; and (b) a chance for that person to answer the questioning and go home without further consequences or permanent injury to his reputation, if innocent.Canadian_watcher wrote:
I shouldn't have said "arrested" I should have said detained / brought in for questioning.
No, I didn't know 'perfectly well' what you meant. You stated unequivocally that there is some empirical standard of IDing someone on a video before police can use that as a basis for detaining a suspect.compared2what? wrote:I'm not a forensic expert, so I don't know. But you know perfectly well that my point was that if that process isn't crooked, they use professional forensic photo-ID techniques, which are codified professionally. And not by them, at their discretion.But how fascinating! What's the forensic scientific threshold of for positive suspect ID on grainy security camera footage in your state? I can't find it written down anywhere in Canadian Law.
As a result, if they try to hang a questionable video-ID on someone, it's open to challenge. Which reminds me:
The other diifference is that whether they use it well or poorly, at least they don't just conclusively state it's the perp, end of story, and leave him publicly saddled with that for the rest of his life without so much as giving him a chance to say it's not.
compared2what? wrote:I don't agree. Your real response, unmediated by videos and MSM both, is worth a lot more attention than either, I mean, "you, Canadian_watcher," in this case. But also, "you, everyone."
It’s not defeatist at all, it’s simply recognizing that for us to ‘win’ we need to change the rules of the game.Your commentary -- depressing and defeatist but nonetheless pretty accurate I think. Although with the internet it might just be possible that this is the best/last time to find the cracks. wishful thinking.
Ahhh, so...don't bother. Don't sleuth. Ignore the seams.I would imagine that the intervening 70+ years have allowed the intelligence community to evolve these methods into a completely untraceable art form. One that would continually flummox all manner of Internut pseudo sleuth & his/her attempts to Google a peek behind the curtain at the nefarious machinations of the Great & Powerful Oz.
In other words, if you're seeing seams in the construct, you're probably meant to see those seams.
Which leads me to ask
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist & a dog chasing its own tail?
The dog is usually smart enough to eventually figure out that it's chasing its own tail.
I wish I could enlarge this:Sounder wrote:To be clear C_W, ...
you're so very entertainingFourthBase wrote:Ahhh, so...don't bother. Don't sleuth. Ignore the seams.I would imagine that the intervening 70+ years have allowed the intelligence community to evolve these methods into a completely untraceable art form. One that would continually flummox all manner of Internut pseudo sleuth & his/her attempts to Google a peek behind the curtain at the nefarious machinations of the Great & Powerful Oz.
In other words, if you're seeing seams in the construct, you're probably meant to see those seams.
Which leads me to ask
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist & a dog chasing its own tail?
The dog is usually smart enough to eventually figure out that it's chasing its own tail.
Great strategy.
And this mindset is then applauded and only barely quibbled with by two more.
Perhaps you guys are construction n00bs, but cracks can definitely lead to collapse.
Sorry for interrupting your hopelessly-cynical circle-jerk. Carry on, doomers.
Uhhh...¿Que?Sounder wrote:FB, first off, I want to thank-you for being an agent for inspiration this past week.
Now, and I'm kind of sorry to be hitting your triggers, but then again, man up.
You might try to add two plus two with my words before you resort to the large font green type.
Perhaps you are upset at the turn that your brainstorm thread has taken.
Hey maybe that other thread could use some green font misrepresentation also.
That would be much simpler than dealing with substantive issues like necessary and sufficient and other icky topics that use long words.
OH shit, there I go being condescending. And yeah, you are right this time.
Right we're only here to be entertained by spooky campfire stories about The Evil Establishment That Could Never Be Detected So Why Bother. Right, sleuthing is so boring. Better to be frightened shitless by pigs in glorified humvees. Better to not even look for seams, because they're probably seams intentionally left there to trick you. "It's a trap! That's a trap, too! Everything is a trap!" And that needless extreme of what ought to be healthy paranoia becomes, ironically, a trap.Canadian_watcher wrote:you're so very entertainingFourthBase wrote:Ahhh, so...don't bother. Don't sleuth. Ignore the seams.I would imagine that the intervening 70+ years have allowed the intelligence community to evolve these methods into a completely untraceable art form. One that would continually flummox all manner of Internut pseudo sleuth & his/her attempts to Google a peek behind the curtain at the nefarious machinations of the Great & Powerful Oz.
In other words, if you're seeing seams in the construct, you're probably meant to see those seams.
Which leads me to ask
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist & a dog chasing its own tail?
The dog is usually smart enough to eventually figure out that it's chasing its own tail.
Great strategy.
And this mindset is then applauded and only barely quibbled with by two more.
Perhaps you guys are construction n00bs, but cracks can definitely lead to collapse.
Sorry for interrupting your hopelessly-cynical circle-jerk. Carry on, doomers.