It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

# Ferguson Corruption PROOF

page: 2
11
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:48 PM

originally posted by: deadeyedick

that equals to est. of 9 seconds of travel at least by brown covering 25'

the average person walks about 3 to 4 ft per sec. multiple that by the 9 sec. and you get 36' of travel by an average person when walking.

i choose to multiply 9 and 3. since the average person covers 3 to 4 ft per second...i choose 3

last time i checked 9x3=27

you said brown traveled approx 25 feet. not exactly.

so there is a 2 foot difference between the result of your math problem and the approx travel distance.

now what?

maybe it was 26 feet he covered and he was not moving at 3 feet per second

youre trying to create situations to fit what you think happened and it is not working

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:49 PM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

And cops would NEVER stretch the truth about the going for gun thing.
Seeing as once is said everyone is on their side, and who are you gonna believe a cop or a dead guy?

I will believe the eyewitnesses who didn't know Brown and the direct evidence they showed of blood on the inside of the cops vehicle door.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:50 PM

originally posted by: rustydog
a reply to: deadeyedick

Nice try, i don't think this proves anything. Way too many approximations in this equation

false the shots were on tape and the officer said he warned before firing multiple times. that = time

brown left a blood trail after turning around that = distance

the officer also stated that brown never stopped coming at him until he fell dead. that =rate of speed

when you add them all up they total contridicts wilsons statments

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:51 PM

originally posted by: deadeyedick

if brown was travelling faster than walking then it adds to the distance one would travel in 9 sec. making wilsons statments even further from the truth.
and what if he was traveling slower?

wilson stated that brown never stopped and even led to believe that brown was running.

why can you not understand that 25' in 9 seconds is slower than walking and is not threatening enough to shoot someone
oh..you say it was not threatening so it must be so

again, youre trying to invent scenarios to fit with what you think happened. you are failing at it.
i have been watching the other thread as well. youre doing the same thing there.
phage and shamrock6 have been chopping you down for about 2 days now.
guess you decided to give up in that thread and start this one...yet, here you are getting chopped down again

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:53 PM

originally posted by: deadeyedick

brown left a blood trail after turning around that = distance

i suppose you are a criminalist then
you know all about patterns, spatter, directionality, etc etc?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:53 PM

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: deadeyedick

that equals to est. of 9 seconds of travel at least by brown covering 25'

the average person walks about 3 to 4 ft per sec. multiple that by the 9 sec. and you get 36' of travel by an average person when walking.

i choose to multiply 9 and 3. since the average person covers 3 to 4 ft per second...i choose 3

last time i checked 9x3=27

you said brown traveled approx 25 feet. not exactly.

so there is a 2 foot difference between the result of your math problem and the approx travel distance.

now what?

maybe it was 26 feet he covered and he was not moving at 3 feet per second

youre trying to create situations to fit what you think happened and it is not working

ok then if we accept that brown was walking towards the officer then we can assume that he was not charging wilson then and the shooting was murder and wilson was in no danger from brown walking toward him and wilson lied. what else did wilson lie about?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:54 PM
keep in mind, the 6 seconds of shooting, i know if i was hit with a bullet i would slow down a little bit, let alone multiple bullets, any way you could calculate that into your assumption? imnot trying to be rude or mean or anything, just something i thought of while reading.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:55 PM
a reply to: deadeyedick

the officer also stated that brown never stopped coming at him until he fell dead. that =rate of speed

No. It does not address how long after turning it took for Brown to get to whatever speed he was going. I did an experiment myself. A slow step or two changes things.

when you add them all up they total contridicts wilsons statements
The only "contradiction" may be in the use of the word "running". Brown continued to advance.
edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:55 PM

originally posted by: deadeyedick

ok then if we accept that brown was walking towards the officer then we can assume that he was not charging wilson then and the shooting was murder and wilson was in no danger from brown walking toward him and wilson lied. what else did wilson lie about?

or we can accept that brown may not have been moving at an even clip for the entire distance.
did you factor that into your theorem?
maybe he got faster as the distance got shorter

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:56 PM

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: deadeyedick

brown left a blood trail after turning around that = distance

i suppose you are a criminalist then

you know all about patterns, spatter, directionality, etc etc?

do i need to be to accept the findings that the grand jury accepted. this is what i am basing this on. the findings of the grand jury. they accepted the blood trail as a representation of browns last steps.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:56 PM
a reply to: deadeyedick

and wilson was in no danger from brown
If Brown had gotten on the ground Wilson would not have been in danger. As long as Brown was advancing Wilson had every reason to believe he was in danger.

edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:59 PM

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: deadeyedick

ok then if we accept that brown was walking towards the officer then we can assume that he was not charging wilson then and the shooting was murder and wilson was in no danger from brown walking toward him and wilson lied. what else did wilson lie about?

or we can accept that brown may not have been moving at an even clip for the entire distance.

did you factor that into your theorem?

maybe he got faster as the distance got shorter

wilson stated a fast pace and that brown never stopped. givin the slow pace of 3x9 we can assume brown never went slower than that because if he did he would not be a threat so then any speed burst would add to the base distance of someone walking below the pace of an average human. also brown was above average and would staticaly travel faster that the average person.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:59 PM
At a leisurely walk I covered over 100ft in less than 9 seconds...than hit a wall. Does that ruin the science?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:00 PM
a reply to: deadeyedick

wilson stated a fast pace and that brown never stopped.

Did he say he didn't slow down? Did he say he was at a run as soon as he turned?

also brown was above average and would staticaly travel faster that the average person.
Above average in what? Weight?

edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:04 PM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick

and wilson was in no danger from brown
If Brown had gotten on the ground Wilson would not have been in danger. As long as Brown was advancing Wilson had every reason to believe he was in danger.

that is beside the point of the distance and time givin in wilsons statments that is contrary to fact and shows that wilson gave false statments for some reason and was ample reason to indict. the fact that this was skipped by the gj shows corruption or failure of some sorts.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:06 PM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick

and wilson was in no danger from brown
If Brown had gotten on the ground Wilson would not have been in danger. As long as Brown was advancing Wilson had every reason to believe he was in danger.

Why? Since when was murder the first best thing? No Billie club? Mace? Taser? Was Brown just too scary? Does Wilson not know martial arts? Should he? Wouldn't it be better than, I don't know, "do as you're told bitch or I'll shoot you in the face".

I wasn't there, i don't know the distance or the speed. What I know, is that I can get 25 feet in under 3 seconds. Like you, I don't think that proves intent one way or the other. What I believe is that police shouldn't have free reign to kill, period.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:09 PM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick

wilson stated a fast pace and that brown never stopped.

Did he say he didn't slow down? Did he say he was at a run as soon as he turned?

also brown was above average and would staticaly travel faster that the average person.
Above average in what? Weight?

height and weight

actually in the interview he did say that at no point did brown slow down or give the impression of stopping. but that was not a statment to the grand jury

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:10 PM
a reply to: deadeyedick

that is beside the point of the distance and time givin in wilsons statments that is contrary to fact and shows that wilson gave false statements
It is hardly "beside the point." It is crucial because if Brown had been on the ground when Wilson fired it would have been an entirely different situation. But he wasn't. Brown was advancing on Wilson.

There is not enough accurate information about distance or details of how quickly Brown may have accelerated (or slowed) to demonstrate that. Nor is there any evidence that Wilson made intentionally false statements. Were the witnesses who said Brown was shot in the back lying too? Were all the witness that made inaccurate statements lying?

edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:18 PM
a reply to: Phage

the witnesses that said he was shot in the back could have been telling the truth givin that wilsons testimony has now been found to be some what false. there were 6 or so shots that could have been fired whild browns back was turned to wilson but they missed. there was one injury to the arm that could have come from behind or from the front if his arms were elevated. so when you look at it the other way that is another piece that fits.

their is enough evidence to return a true bill but was ignored.

25' 9 seconds and charging does not fit.

you can not just dismiss these facts just because you do not like what they point to.
edit on 30-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:21 PM
a reply to: deadeyedick
So the witnesses that say he was not shot at while running away are lying then. Got it.

their is enough evidence to return a true bill but was ignored.
Well I guess you should have been on the grand jury then.

edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

11