VIDEO: FBI Shows Up At Protesters House And Asks Strange Questions! Must Watch!

page: 24
120
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 




What if she had a tip-off from one of her comrades friends, because they had been given the same visit earlier?


Aw....I feel like such a dumb butt. I did not think about this. This might have been why she asked who they were going to contact next.

very good point.




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Izarith
reply to post by jfj123
 




If a system is looking at 1, 2 minute video at 10-60 fps with a known codec...no.
now figure out how many videos are on a multimedia site.
now figure out how many minutes each of those videos is.
now figure out how many video codecs there are.
now figure how many multimedia sites there are in the entire world.
now figure out how many new videos are added per minute, per site in the entire world.
now go back and rescan those sites on a continuous basis to cover all those new videos.

And this in no way seems daunting to you ?


I have a better idea....

Get your video camera out along with your penis, paint the pines green and super glue googly eyes on it. Make sure you do this after you get a hard on.

now make an artsy film about a pickle looking for his lost jar with your green painted googly eyed hard on as the main character, upload it to your YouTube account with no audio and name the file "Happy Tree Friends", use and video codex you wish.

And see how long your YouTube account lasts. This will be the answer to all that BS you just asked another person to do manually when YouTube clearly all ready has algos to do it faster.


Nothing like missing my point.
Oh and a lot of the videos that are removed from youtube are removed due to complaints and not due to hyper sophisticated software.

And a video codec is not the same as a codex


Oh well, you 2 are going to believe what you wish without the benefit of knowing what you're talking about. Good luck to you both.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You know why there is a word box at the bottom of a sign up form right? And you know that the words are distorted right? Why is that?


YEP! Two reasons.

1. Because you apparently have nothing on topic to discuss and really want my attention.
2. Captcha was invented before there was software that could tell what the subject of a picture is.

The times change. Did you really think that was the perfect, final solution that would never be cracked?


or more...or less... depending on the video.


If you want to get nitpicky, sure. It could be 1. It could be 2000. 1 would make it pretty simple and 2000 fps could be reduced and still contain more information than anything filmed at the ending frame-rate. Point?


If a system is looking at 1, 2 minute video at 10-60 fps with a known codec...no.
now figure out how many videos are on a multimedia site.
now figure out how many minutes each of those videos is.
now figure out how many video codecs there are.
now figure how many multimedia sites there are in the entire world.
now figure out how many new videos are added per minute, per site in the entire world.
now go back and rescan those sites on a continuous basis to cover all those new videos.

And this in no way seems daunting to you ?


No. You fail to take into account every super computer, every mainframe still in use, every telecommunications company with its own extremely advanced hardware and software working in tandem with a government who has military technology at least 10 years more advanced than anything you will find at Bestbuy. You seem sound like because it seems like a big deal to you so it must not be possible. Do you think the idea of every single email, text, and verbal conversation being recorded and sifted through seemed reasonable a few decades ago? That is a lot of voice recognition software going to town and unlike video, if you try to process it at different speeds other than real time, you run into issues.


I'm fairly familiar with computers
How many have you built from the ground up by the way?


Obviously you missed the point. I was not bragging or asking for a nerd-off. The point is that I, just a regular guy has access to the parts and software to build a computer that can do this at home. I hate to tell you this but AT&T can beat that by a long shot.



You should also really educate yourself on motion tracking software.
you mean recognition software....ok done


LMAO!!!!!

Um no...I mean MOTION TRACKING SOFTWARE software. You can tell because I said MOTION TRACKING SOFTWARE. It is one thing to be ignorant, it is quite another to assert some kind of authoritative knowledge and correct someone when you are doing it based on that ignorance. Clearly you are not up to this discussion and should really stop, try to get on topic. This is not working out well for you.


JPL's exotic propulsions program is only 1 place.


So...not exactly on a home pc then?


haven't you heard about the new record of 10 miles for quantum teleportation ? It's been all over the news.


I sure have. When did you replicate that with hardware you could buy around town?

Obviously you have no understanding of the difference between plausible science and new discoveries.

You cannot do teleportation, or build a warp drive at home. The idea of mass implementation seems a little daunting. Facial recognition, motion tracking, image analysis can be done on a home PC. That would mean the idea of supercomputers doing it on a mass scale is not nearly as daunting.

Please, before you attempt to correct me again, look something up.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you.


Promise? Watching you get it wrong over and over is starting to hurt.


As part of their act, they look and act like real cops in the beginning. They look exactly like real cops.


I get it. I am more than willing to concede you have more experience with male strippers than me. OK, you win that. However, when do they act like an officer of the law? When they come in and say 'I am officer Shlongenstein and I got a report that this party was waaaaaaaaaaaay too sexy!" Or do you see real cops do that?

Show me one example of a stripper in a cop uniform that ever actually impersonated an officer of the law and was not prosecuted. Just one. You are really going to have to find out what it takes to be guilty of impersonating an officer. Putting on a blue shirt, going to a bachorlette party and taking it off does not quite apply.


Why do you think the only thing police do is conduct traffic stops? Use your brain for 2 seconds... MY GOD !!!


What? Where are you from? There was a bunch of car break ins in the neighborhood this week. A friend and fellow member here had his car stolen last night. The sheriff was here taking reports. He did not conduct one traffic stop. Police go to my dad's home and arrest him all the time.
I have no clue what you are even saying.



Nope you've completely missed my point entirely. Explaining it again won't give you the ability to understand it. I can't change the limiting factors that make it unable for you to comprehend. Sorry.


No, I got your point. You are trying to say that strippers do it all the time. They get away with impersonating cops. You are saying that it must be ok to do then because they do it, Mulder did it. Unless you have decided to change your mind because you are confused, I will be happy to go back and quote you. You think that if there were really such a law in place that prevented people from impersonating cops, then strippers would not be able to get away with it and you think that they do. You are having a tough time giving even one example though so it is really time to give up on this.


Look in the mirror. You will find yourself oh so intriguing


Glad you think so too.


Showing up at a ladies house, NOT dressed like an officer of the law, not arresting anyone, not enforcing anything, and just asking her some questions is also apparently not impersonating a police officer... your logic.


No, that is YOUR LOGIC. You do not see the difference between portraying yourself as an officer of the law and attempting to conduct what is deemed as official business and stripping. That is really not my issue.


Then you better start having a number of strippers arrested. Oh and don't forget all actors who impersonate the police.


We already covered actors and you know they are covered by the fact that they are in entertainment and protected by disclaimers and specific rules. Bringing it back up seems desperate. You have not offered one example that would lead me to believe any stripper is impersonating a cop anywhere. You just keep asserting it. With all the bachelorette parties you have been to, it would seem you could have offered one by now.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

If a system is looking at 1, 2 minute video at 10-60 fps with a known codec...no.
now figure out how many videos are on a multimedia site.
now figure out how many minutes each of those videos is.
now figure out how many video codecs there are.
now figure how many multimedia sites there are in the entire world.
now figure out how many new videos are added per minute, per site in the entire world.
now go back and rescan those sites on a continuous basis to cover all those new videos.

And this in no way seems daunting to you ?



No. You fail to take into account every super computer, every mainframe still in use, every telecommunications company with its own extremely advanced hardware and software working in tandem with a government who has military technology at least 10 years more advanced than anything you will find at Bestbuy.

Care to back this up ? Are they still using windows ME ?



You seem sound like because it seems like a big deal to you so it must not be possible.

Again anything is possible but not everything is practical in all cases.


Do you think the idea of every single email, text, and verbal conversation being recorded and sifted through seemed reasonable a few decades ago?

yes.


That is a lot of voice recognition software going to town and unlike video, if you try to process it at different speeds other than real time, you run into issues.

Not really.


It is one thing to be ignorant, it is quite another to assert some kind of authoritative knowledge and correct someone when you are doing it based on that ignorance.

Yes you should work on this.


Clearly you are not up to this discussion and should really stop, try to get on topic. This is not working out well for you.

denial is your friend



Please, before you attempt to correct me again, look something up.


People like you are amusing. You go by the hyper competence hypothesis. You believe the government is so hyper competent that it is almost a living, mystical entity that sees all and knows all. Events happening around us all the time disproves this but hey, whatever lets you sleep at night I guess.

This is getting too far off topic and I'm talking to a brick wall so I'll volunteer to move on.
I hope you have a great week !



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 




Nothing like missing my point.


Aw common man....

Look I totally see you point. Because you do honestly have a good point.

I'm just look at it from the perspective of believing the government has far better tech than we do. Years ahead always.



Oh and a lot of the videos that are removed from youtube are removed due to complaints and not due to hyper sophisticated software.


But that's just the thing, only in your defence do you offer this information.

You have millions of people monitoring these videos free of charge simple by adding a complaint button. You have incorporate the people who do this into the monitoring equation too.



And a video codec is not the same as a codex


Thanks I always get those confused.




Oh well, you 2 are going to believe what you wish without the benefit of knowing what you're talking about. Good luck to you both.


Well I'll tell you I have learned a lot from you about this subject. So thanks. You do seem to know a quite bit of what your talking about.

But there are still many factors wee need to look at. And initially this was about this video that the person who mad the OP clearly did not have to much trouble finding on her own.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Care to back this up ? Are they still using windows ME ?


You think the military uses windows ME to run their satellite systems? Think AT&T uses Amigas and 3.5 inch disks to keep their networks running?

What do you want me to back up? That communications companies have better computers than you do at home? Seriously? All you need to do is talk to someone in the military and someone at a telecom company. Are there government offices that still have monochrome monitors and 5 inch drives? Sure. Are they keeping my broadband connection running? Uh...no.


Again anything is possible but not everything is practical in all cases.


That is why I explained to you why it is far more practical than you think.



yes.


Then you do not understand voice recognition software or the number of people emailing, texting, phoning, IMing, etc there are at one time - all being recorded and analyzed. If you really think every phone conversation can be recorded and listened to for key words just fine but not every image 10 years later you are not operating with a basis in reality, just what you think. All you have offered is opinions. I have already shown you were to look for facts. You refuse. Apparently this is more about arguing with me than knowing anything.


Not really.


I would love to hear you explain yourself on that. Just saying no is not really a valid argument now is it?


Yes you should work on this.


Hey, you are the one that corrected me for saying "motion tracking software" for no good reason. It was what I meant and it was correct. You have little more that snide remarks designed to deflect from the fact that you have offered nothing but opinions and the wonderful ability you have to be wrong.



denial is your friend


Projection is yours.

Not even going to address how wrong you were for correcting me? Yup, that is denial to just pretend you did not correct me and you were not wrong when you did it. Sorry I took you more seriously.


People like you are amusing. You go by the hyper competence hypothesis. You believe the government is so hyper competent that it is almost a living, mystical entity that sees all and knows all. Events happening around us all the time disproves this but hey, whatever lets you sleep at night I guess.


No, I believe motion tracking software was what I meant to say and what I did say. That is what I believe.


This is getting too far off topic and I'm talking to a brick wall so I'll volunteer to move on.
I hope you have a great week !


Nothing like being wrong all over the place and still responding just to pretend you were not. Not one fact, not one link, reference, nothing. All you have is you pretending you have not been proven wrong all over the place and re-asserting your opinion. Well, ok. I will stick with facts that are easy to find. You enjoy your opinions that are apparently based on nothing.

See if you can figure out what the topic is.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
So they guy says, "All were here to make sure is everyone's safe and no one gets hurt."

She answers, sarcastically, "We don't want anyone hurt we want everyone safe. What a noble cause."

What...that's not a noble cause? No wonder she sides with the terrorists. Oh and how about this winner:

He asks, "Are there any plans on any type of activity that would hurt anyone, cause any pain to anyone or destroy any property?"

She laughs and asks, "Are you kidding?"

Does he f^%&ing look like he's kidding? Yes, this is a all a joke played just on you, moron.

BTW: Nice Palestinian flag there. I missed her American flag. She must be using it to wipe her ass with.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by At0mZer0
 


I have lurked for a longggg time but just noticed this looks VERY like the guy who tailed Alex jones in the Obama deception!!!



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by At0mZer0
 


Thanks for sharing the video, protesting is everyone's right. Intimidating someone would gain no fruits. I applaud the lady for standing her ground and not giving in to intimidation.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
She should be upset with her neighbours, who I assume reported her. NOT the FBI lol.

Plus, the FBI are small frys lol. I wouldn't worry about the FBI. Only one level up from Community Support Officers



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by name pending
reply to post by At0mZer0
 


Thanks for sharing the video, protesting is everyone's right. Intimidating someone would gain no fruits. I applaud the lady for standing her ground and not giving in to intimidation.


What intimidation? The only people in the video being intimidated was the FBI guy. He looked like he was about to wet himself.

This is why we get viewed negatively by the masses. Up come 2 friendly FBI officers, bottom of the food chain most likely, just doing their job, following up a lead; Only to be harassed by some crackpot woman.

If she wasn't so nutty she wouldn't have been reported as a potential terrorist lol



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Nikolam
 


The info does not match anyway.



US Marshals office.


When a multi agency task force is established then the federal aspect of it will often make local/state officers Special Deputy US Marshals. This gives them authority to carry firearms nationwide and also make arrests for federal crimes. The IDs match FBI credentials I have seen in the past and on the subject of neither of the FBI agents carrying firearms, concealed means concealed with a tuckable IWB holster the weapon would not be visible, nor an ankle holster...

The role of SDUSM exists for exactly this kind of situation, in the past there have been numerous people sworn in as Special Deputies to enable them to carry firearms nationwide, kind of like a federal CCW.

edit on 16-9-2010 by CrackBerry because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Wow... I just saw the video today in the OP on Liveleak... I know its old but it makes interesting viewing none the less.

WHEN THE F.B.I KNOCKS ON YOUR DOOR





new topics
top topics
 
120
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join