Subj : Donate to DNC
To   : Aaron Thomas
From : Jeff Thiele
Date : Sun Nov 06 2022 15:59:26

On 06 Nov 2022, Aaron Thomas said the following...
 AT>  JT> The DNC's footage of the pipe bomber is not the only footage availabl
 AT>  JT> Dan Bongino is misleading you.
 AT> This is the footage of the "bomb" being "planted" by a "conservative"
 AT> lunatic.

And there is enough detail (along with timestamps) to match this person to
the person seen in other surveillance.

 AT> It was forwarded from the DNC to the FBI. For the DNC to be recording
 AT> with cameras of that quality, and then to say "we hope to catch this
 AT> person" is insane.

See above.

 AT> I have nearly 50x the quality of the DNC's camera in my home; was
 AT> Watergate not as big a deal as dogs taking shits on my lawn?

Good for you.

 AT>  JT> Nevertheless, if the cameras picked up motion at a given time, other
 AT>  JT> cameras in the area can be checked to see if they captured the pipe
 AT>  JT> bomber approacing or leaving the scene. There were indeed such nearby
 AT>  JT> cameras.
 AT> But what about when the thing was actually planted?

There is video of that, too. See above.

 AT>  JT> There is other footage available.
 AT> But no suspect yet.

Sometimes these things take time.

 AT>  JT> I'm personally glad that they're spending donor money on candidates
 AT>  JT> instead of themselves.
 AT> Me too. I hope the loopholes in their security destroy them.

In other words, you hope that future pipe bombers are more successful.

 AT>  JT> Who else would pipe-bomb the DNC? Oh, wait, this is another unfounded
 AT>  JT> conspiracy theory, isn't it?
 AT> It's actually a founded one.

Based on what evidence?

 AT>  JT> In what way was it modified? What's the point in modifying an
 AT>  JT> already-low-res image? Unless you have evidence, this is more unfound
 AT>  JT> nonsense.
 AT> It was modified in a way so that the person in the video planting the
 AT> bomb can not be identified, alternatively, a real security camera was
 AT> switched with an antique one for the occasion.

If you had any actual evidence of the footage being modified, you'd know
which of those two it was. "Alternatively," you have no evidence.

 AT>  JT> Revolver is rated right-biased and questionable because of poor sourc
 AT>  JT> techniques and a complete lack of transparency, by the way. You may w
 AT>  JT> to find a more reliable news source.
 AT> It's not Revolver's reputation that is relevant; it's their observation
 AT> that the DNC can't legitimately defend the quality of their
 AT> "surveillance" camera in the footage that involved the suspect planting
 AT> the bomb.

Actually, you cited Revolver as saying that there was an 80% chance that the
video was modified. So indeed it is their reputation that is relevant.

 AT>  JT> Hwre is additional footage of the pipe-bomber:
 AT>  JT> https://tinyurl.com/yjtyr3rh
 AT> Thanks. Already seen it before posting this message.

Then you should have already known that higher-quality footage of the pipe
bomber existed before you posted this tripe.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
 * Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

.