The Rabbit Hole | Page 503 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Peering down the algorithmic trading rabbit hole 11 replies

Badgers Bolt hole 39 replies

Different Charting software: Hole in charts? 0 replies

Pipbuilder's hole 2 replies

Black Hole Trading 0 replies

Attachments: The Rabbit Hole
Exit Attachments

The Rabbit Hole

  • #10,041
  • Oct 7, 2017 9:19am Oct 7, 2017 9:19am
Quoting spzd
{quote} How they act is enough to guarantee victory. They continue with the same ol' same ol' while Trump and his team quietly move forward with MAGA and the average person sees this.
Yeah, however aside from that fact, and BTW you are correct, I am more troubled by the "Calm before the storm" remark he had made that is starting to get some attention. What do you suppose that means?
  • #10,042
  • Oct 7, 2017 12:09pm Oct 7, 2017 12:09pm
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} This is the first time I am hearing this, and I find it weird that days after LV tragedy now this happens. Coincidence? I don't think so!
At least no one was killed, as of writing. Good job he only had a car and not guns eh? Police are saying it's not terror related. Somehow I don't believe that, they have ruled it out rather quickly. Seems fishy.
  • #10,043
  • Oct 7, 2017 12:34pm Oct 7, 2017 12:34pm
Londonistan.

If the guy was a muzzie then it was terror. He damn sure was not genetically British.
Mark ... Everything you have been told is a LIE
  • #10,044
  • Oct 7, 2017 1:59pm Oct 7, 2017 1:59pm
Quoting spzd
Londonistan. If the guy was a muzzie then it was terror. He damn sure was not genetically British.
He looks similar to the Westminster Bridge one.
  • #10,045
  • Oct 7, 2017 2:28pm Oct 7, 2017 2:28pm
Quoting Ross88
{quote} that is my favourite museum but this is why i don't trust the authorities anymore i read about 45 min ago that it was not terror related on Twitter according to a police report and i still don't believe the US authorities with the Las Vegas attack this is going way to far when their is a retaliation than what?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4958398/Car-mounts-pavement-outside-Natural-History-Museum.html

they are saying this was not terror related again well i do not remember this type of thing happening 5 years ago call me paranoid if you like but i believe without proof this was terror related i do not trust the authorities when it comes to terrorism we are in a sad state of affairs

also i was CoC on post 10007
  • #10,046
  • Edited 3:16pm Oct 7, 2017 3:00pm | Edited 3:16pm
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Again, just because I stated that it is impossible given all the facts that we know, doesn't make me close minded, is the assertion you made which I take issue with. I have no idea how you would get your forensics guy to make a video, I am assuming it would not be that hard to do in his off time to put something together to support his theories without having to use government weapons (which is hilarious in how you put it) There is plenty of ways of doing it without having to use live weapons such as pictures and graphics that is available...
I think the biggest problem with convincing him to do a video is because he would just laugh, there is an assumption here that he is interested in what he would regard as a petty internet argument - very few (rightly) take what other people say on the internet seriously. As I said, he is not just a forensics expert, he is an expert witness to court in the field of gun crime , he spends all his time working with guns and their modifications and reports on accuracy, energy, ability to fire etc etc. I don't think he has fired the RPG, but I think he has fired most other guns in his work.



Reply to your :


"When I say that there was more than one shooter involved, I am 100% unequivocal about this. Call me close minded if you want, but I speak from my own experience of handling such weapons and know how to identify the different signature cadences of certain types of weapons in how they sound. Whether Paddock was even the shooter is something I am however open to be mistaken about, but given what I know and what I have examined so far, it is my opinion that he wasn't even the shooter at all. You can disagree with that assertion, and that is fine with me, as you are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. Anyway, have a good weekend, and hope this clears up what I was trying to say."

The problem with the analysis of the sounds is there are clearly echos which resonates after the gun has stopped shooting which makes the firing seem both longer, and because the echos sound differently it makes it sound like a different weapon is firing. Confusing matters further, if you watch the recordings you can see that sounds are also recorded differently as the cameras are moved. And you don't have to be an expert in anything to understand that.



"First, the guy in the video is not a forensics expert, but a gun expert who has plenty of experience with weapons."

...and other experts have different opinions.


"Second and more to my earlier point, if you don't have experience with handling such weapons personally or have never been to a firing range to know what specific weapons are, and how their cadence is a signature how would you know what to listen for?"

And other experts disagree.



"While I will concede to your friends assertion that it is possible to fire on a crowd from 5000 + meters, from a 32nd window to have done so there would have been muzzle flashes seen in some of the videos."

I never said the distance was 5000 meters, you are just making a statement though - yes? Muzzle flashes, yes I don't understand how it wasn't captured either.



"Also to your previous point, about "bump Stocks" a modification on the alleged weapon used to make it easier to handle is pretty much debunked. There is no way that would have made it easier, in fact it would have made it harder and to be accurate."

I never mentioned a 'bump stocks', why then do you have that in quotes? I said 'The guy had a forgrip on the gun to help with recoil and a bipod on the end of his gun so he didn't have to hold it' ...and those most definitely do help to make it easier to handle.



"Also I heard people saying that a suppressor was used, but that too would have been impossible given the duration of fire that occurred. Suppressors are only good for short bursts, and would not be able to sustain a long rapid succession of firing, as they would melt from being over heated."

I have no idea why people think there is a silencer

You can have your opinion, other also with significant gun experience disagree.



As for your youtube guy here are the names of some of the other videos he is posting:

Demonic Possession in 2016 - Florida Case Study (Revised) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R50Wk8tP_ZM)
Spiritual Regeneration - Indwelling of the Holy Ghost (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaxCWLiePhk)
World Revolution, Corruption, Conspiracy, and the Silicon Valley (Part 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1oFwxmuRLg)
Post WW2 Shadow Government 01 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECWcn4nHqLM)
Satanic Elite Funding Post Election Anti-Trump Riots & Inciting Violence Nationwide (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fL94hEmI5I)
  • #10,047
  • Oct 7, 2017 6:38pm Oct 7, 2017 6:38pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl_EEpRfrkk
Mark ... Everything you have been told is a LIE
  • #10,048
  • Edited 9:55pm Oct 7, 2017 9:14pm | Edited 9:55pm
Quoting verv
{quote} I think the biggest problem with convincing him to do a video is because he would just laugh, there is an assumption here that he is interested in what he would regard as a petty internet argument - very few (rightly) take what other people say on the internet seriously. As I said, he is not just a forensics expert, he is an expert witness to court in the field of gun crime , he spends all his time working with guns and their modifications and reports on accuracy, energy, ability to fire etc etc. I don't think he has fired the RPG, but I...
regardless, you used him to support your argument and if you want to make excuses as to why he can not do a video that is fine. Find someone else to support your argument if you are unequivocal about it. In other words you're just making blanketed statements without any scientific facts to support your argument as to why it would be possible. Secondly, as to why I would take the word of a gun expert with a military background then some forensics expert is a big distinction, such as one who uses such weapons over a longer period of time has a trained ear, a forensics expert is trained to focus on the scientific aspects of weapons and they do not have a trained ear.


The problem with the analysis of the sounds is there are clearly echos which resonates after the gun has stopped shooting which makes the firing seem both longer, and because the echos sound differently it makes it sound like a different weapon is firing. Confusing matters further, if you watch the recordings you can see that sounds are also recorded differently as the cameras are moved. And you don't have to be an expert in anything to understand that.

Yeah that is pretty weak! I provided another video proving that to be false in identifying what type of guns where likely being used. The echo argument has already been proven to be false by experts. Also like I said before and something you ignore altogether you do not have a trained ear and nor have any experience with firing weapons to be able to make that distinction, and yes that does matter in the argument you are trying to make contrary to mine. So why are you trying to argue this point and invalidate mine? Here, this is a better video something that I already posted, that also proves the first guy's video.

https://youtu.be/M9MIhXjMlKc


...and other experts have different opinions.

Not too much, and the ones that do is not clear and cut and can find holes in the theories they present, if it was, we wouldn't be trying to piss in the wind like we are doing here trying to make an argument on the contrary to prove our points, but seeing that you are challenging that view here is another guy who pretty much supports the first video I posted.

Also I found another video of a guy who doesn't believe the multiple shooter argument, and even he finds something suspicious about the audio from the Taxi driver video by doing an audio analysis.

https://youtu.be/nbBEBzij1BE

And other experts disagree.

Ok, great, so why don't you support that? Post something here to support your argument, otherwise you are just stating an opinion with out anything to back it up.

I never said the distance was 5000 meters, you are just making a statement though - yes? Muzzle flashes, yes I don't understand how it wasn't captured either.

No I never said that you said that just stating distance in which ranges of certain weapons are measured against. The actual distance from the 32nd floor is estimated to be 1100 feet. In order for the shooter to have hit his targets it would have been impossible to shoot down without being seen as he would have had to been in the window pointing down, hence the fact there were no muzzles flashes. I already made this point in my earlier post. This was something the guy in the first video pointed out as well, but you seem to want to focus on discrediting him because he explores other subject matter you disagree with, which has nothing to do with what he presented.

I never mentioned a 'bump stocks', why then do you have that in quotes? I said 'The guy had a forgrip on the gun to help with recoil and a bipod on the end of his gun so he didn't have to hold it' ...and those most definitely do help to make it easier to handle.

Ok maybe I misquoted your statement, because the issue of bumpstocks is one that has been mentioned quite a bit in regards to the alleged weapon he used. Also even if he had a foregrip and bipod that wouldn't have made a huge difference, based on my earlier points I made.

You can have your opinion, other also with significant gun experience disagree. As for your youtube guy here are the names of some of the other videos he is posting:

Again, you don't know what you are talking about, a silencer and a suppressor are not the same thing. I suggest you look that up before trying to dismiss that point of view.

Again who are these other significant gun experts who disagree? I am still waiting for you to prove this!

So what? So according to you, if this guy posts other stuff about opinions that he has on other subject matter that is consistent with christian beliefs that you find you don't support or believe at all is of a sudden he is not credible? Yeah that is what I expected from you Verve, but remember you are the one trying to state you have all these experts who disagree yet you can't post or back anything up to support your counter arguments. Just on that alone you do yourself a disservice in being open minded, something you accuse of me the very same thing of not being.
  • #10,049
  • Edited 9:57pm Oct 7, 2017 9:17pm | Edited 9:57pm
Quoting jen101
{quote} At least no one was killed, as of writing. Good job he only had a car and not guns eh? Police are saying it's not terror related. Somehow I don't believe that, they have ruled it out rather quickly. Seems fishy.

Yeah that is weak. So in your argument. lets take all the guns away so everyone can be safe, meanwhile you complain about your government being able to do what what ever they want with impunity because they have nothing to fear from the people. That is exactly why Americans are unequivocal about relinquishing their rights of the 2nd Amendment, other than having the right to defend themselves. You measure that one successful terrorist prevention against how many that were not? All because no one has guns? I think you are conflating the gun issue altogether. You already know how I feel about this, and you can never take the human element out of the equation, which is unpredictable.
  • #10,050
  • Edited 10:23pm Oct 7, 2017 10:11pm | Edited 10:23pm
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Yeah that is weak. So in your argument. lets take all the guns away so everyone can be safe, meanwhile you complain about your government being able to do what what ever they want with impunity because they have nothing to fear from the people. That is exactly why Americans are unequivocal about relinquishing their rights of the 2nd Amendment, other than having the right to defend themselves. You measure that one successful terrorist prevention against how many that were not? All because no one has guns? I think you are conflating the gun...
Why are you so defensive and going off on a tangent? Did I mention guns and America? No, I was talking about a specific: yesterday afternoon on Exhibition Road in South Kensington, a nutjob tried to kill people by ramming them with a car and failed. He most certainly would not have failed if he had a gun. Are you disputing that? Why can't you just take what is said at face value?

As you mentioned it, so you think having guns is a good way of keeping your government in check? Really? Looks pretty chaotic to me from where I'm sitting. Using the threat of death as a deterrent?! We happen to do things in a more civilised manner here. We also have the Monarchy. All government bodies are HM meaning Her Majesty's... including the armed forces. The Monarch has the overriding power. So, you see we don't need an arsenal of weapons in case we have to overthrow our government.
  • #10,051
  • Edited 10:31pm Oct 7, 2017 10:19pm | Edited 10:31pm
Quoting Ross88
{quote} do you consider these people to be smart and mentally stable? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS74Jh8iEUE how many bad things do you think Hillary can do before her cult turns on her? can you show me anyone behaving like this for Trump? who is being manipulated by genitals and who called anyone that dose not vote for them deplorables racist xenophobic sexist? her cult is crying on TV because she didn't get to put a no fly zone in Syria and saying same sex marriage should not be illegal until 2008 how do you think her cult would...
Cult of Trump, Cult of Hillary, Hillary fools, Trump fools, gaga for Trump, gaga for Hillary ==> They are all "deplorables"

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: far_sideb.jpg Size: 895 KB


"can you show me anyone behaving like this for Trump" ==> you are kidding, right ? (perhaps not like stupidmiley but just as moronic, fools I say ALL fools)..
GOOGLE ==> "trump followers are stupid"
GOOGLE ==> "Hillary folowers are stupid"

You are free to choose your own brand of stupid.
  • #10,052
  • Oct 7, 2017 10:22pm Oct 7, 2017 10:22pm
Quoting jen101
{quote} Why are you so defensive and going off on a tangent? Did I mention guns and America? No, I was talking about a specific: yesterday afternoon on Exhibition Road in South Kensington, a nutjob tried to kill people by ramming them with a car and failed. He most certainly would not have failed if he had a gun. Are you disputing that? Why can't you just take what is said at face value?
"At least no one was killed, as of writing. Good job he only had a car and not guns eh?"

This sure sounds like you are making an issue about guns and America, and given your previous statements on the issue as to where you stand on it is not hard to understand why this statement might be construed as such.

He most certainly would not have failed if he had a gun. Are you disputing that? Why can't you just take what is said at face value?

Yes I can dispute that, because you are posing it as a hypothetical. How do you know that? What I will agree with is the chances are probably greater had he used a gun, but not 100% that he would have been successful. In reality guns are not the issue but the criminal who no matter what will do anything and find anyway to commit mass murder is the issue, and as of recent you don't need a gun to do just that. Manchester, Sweden, Germany and France have already proven that to be fact!

This is more to my point for anybody who wants to make the anti gun argument.

https://youtu.be/AoUSzBT8fBk
  • #10,053
  • Oct 7, 2017 10:57pm Oct 7, 2017 10:57pm
Quoting jen101
{quote} As you mentioned it, so you think having guns is a good way of keeping your government in check? Really? Looks pretty chaotic to me from where I'm sitting. Using the threat of death as a deterrent?! We happen to do things in a more civilised manner here. We also have the Monarchy. All government bodies are HM meaning Her Majesty's... including the armed forces. The Monarch has the overriding power. So, you see we don't need an arsenal of weapons in case we have to overthrow our government.

Using the threat of death as a deterrent? How many law abiding gun owners do know of are making such threats? This alone is absurd! It is written in our constitution as a well regulated Militia to give power to the people to defend against a tyrannical government. The very same right given to those fighting for independence against the country that you are a citizen of in 1776. Civilized? Where has that notion gotten you? In fact you have less rights than we do and supporting your argument with having and trusting a monarch is pretty much the point why America was born to begin with, so yeah not going to agree on that one.
  • #10,054
  • Oct 7, 2017 11:02pm Oct 7, 2017 11:02pm
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} "At least no one was killed, as of writing. Good job he only had a car and not guns eh?" This sure sounds like you are making an issue about guns and America, and given your previous statements on the issue as to where you stand on it is not hard to understand why this statement might be construed as such. He most certainly would not have failed if he had a gun. Are you disputing that? Why can't you just take what is said at face value? Yes I can dispute that, because you are posing it as a hypothetical. How do you know that? What I will...
Of course people are the problem, but how on earth are you going to stop all the nutters? You can't. Here, we do the next best thing and that is to control what they can get hold of. Yes, our death toll from terrorist attacks is heavy reading, but it would be a hell of a lot higher if guns were involved too. Sure, you can argue that cars, knives etc can kill, but so can a glass bottle. So can a right hook. But guns are the only things designed to kill and are the most efficient. You're not giving the army knives and cars instead of guns are you?
  • #10,055
  • Edited 11:23pm Oct 7, 2017 11:11pm | Edited 11:23pm
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Using the threat of death as a deterrent? How many law abiding gun owners do know of are making such threats? This alone is absurd! It is written in our constitution as a well regulated Militia to give power to the people to defend against a tyrannical government. The very same right given to those fighting for independence against the country that you are a citizen of in 1776. Civilized? Where has that notion gotten you? In fact you have less rights than we do and supporting your argument with having and trusting a monarch is pretty much...
It's always so hilarious to read about guns in America and the second amendment
Please tell me how many gun owners do you know that are members of a well regulated Militia ?

BTW I am totally against gun control. Gun control does not work, No doubt criminals will get guns even under the strictest gun regulations.
To me the issue is medical rather than "self defense" or religious doctrine (the US constitution)
As a gun owner I would want to tell my doctor that "yes apparently I need a surrogate penis, please doctor can you help ?"
  • #10,056
  • Oct 7, 2017 11:24pm Oct 7, 2017 11:24pm
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Using the threat of death as a deterrent? How many law abiding gun owners do know of are making such threats? This alone is absurd! It is written in our constitution as a well regulated Militia to give power to the people to defend against a tyrannical government. The very same right given to those fighting for independence against the country that you are a citizen of in 1776. Civilized? Where has that notion gotten you? In fact you have less rights than we do and supporting your argument with having and trusting a monarch is pretty much...
Yawn. Still harping on about something written over 200 years ago. Really relevant to the threats of today. Anyway, I am talking about the UK and we have no need or desire for guns here. We have less rights than you do? Now that is a new one! Please explain that!
  • #10,057
  • Oct 7, 2017 11:26pm Oct 7, 2017 11:26pm
Quoting jen101
{quote} Of course people are the problem, but how on earth are you going to stop all the nutters? You can't. Here, we do the next best thing and that is to control what they can get hold of. Yes, our death toll from terrorist attacks is heavy reading, but it would be a hell of a lot higher if guns were involved too. Sure, you can argue that cars, knives etc can kill, but so can a glass bottle. So can a right hook. But guns are the only things designed to kill and are the most efficient. You're not giving the army knives and cars instead of guns...
Make your argument to citizens of Switzerland, the Philippines, and other countries around the world were they enjoy the rights to bear arms where they don't have a problem. Again it is not about the guns, which is why I find your argument absurd. Also more to my point about crazies and the argument of outlawing guns; did that stop Terrorists from killing 130+ people in France where they have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world? Uh no, it didn't so your argument is ridiculous. We don't live in this civilized society fantasy world that you like to refer to, we live in a fallen world where evil humans will do evil things, and no amount of debating the merits on why not having guns is going to convince me that it is going to stop such evil humans from doing what they want to do. Nor will it convince me as to why I should trust government for my personal safety, when they themselves are allowed to bear arms. Government rights don't supersede my own individual rights and that is the one fundamental aspect you seem to either ignore or miss altogether or simply put, disagree with. If you want to advocate as such, then don't complain when they override your own rights without so much as having any leverage to hold them accountable for doing so.
  • #10,058
  • Oct 7, 2017 11:31pm Oct 7, 2017 11:31pm
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Make your argument to citizens of Switzerland, the Philippines, and other countries around the world were they enjoy the rights to bear arms where they don't have a problem. Again it is not about the guns, which is why I find your argument absurd. Also more to my point about crazies and the argument of outlawing guns; did that stop Terrorists from killing 130+ people in France where they have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world? Uh no, it didn't so your argument is ridiculous. We don't live in this civilized society fantasy...
Ah, yes of course then! It must be that Americans themselves are too dumb to handle guns! That is basically what you are saying.
  • #10,059
  • Oct 7, 2017 11:32pm Oct 7, 2017 11:32pm
Quoting jen101
{quote} Yawn. Still harping on about something written over 200 years ago. Really relevant to the threats of today. Anyway, I am talking about the UK and we have no need or desire for guns here. We have less rights than you do? Now that is a new one! Please explain that!
Yeah lets just start with freedom of speech and the right to bear arms for starters.

Really relevant to the threats of today.

You simply don't get it Jen! But hold fast to your beliefs that you have no need for them at the same time invalidating those who disagree with your own as wanting to be in control of their own personal safety. Yeah that has worked out so well for citizens in the UK and other European countries! Yawn right back at you!
  • #10,060
  • Oct 7, 2017 11:33pm Oct 7, 2017 11:33pm
This freedom that you keep going on about, who gave you the idea in the first place?
https://youtu.be/sSnJSUU_7q0
1 trader viewing now