Edgar M and the traffic camera facing comet ping pong.

a reply to: Butterfinger

Does that camera have zoom capability. The second picture looks zoomed.

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
I just love posting on these, 'not pizzagate' threads. Opps, there, I've done it now. Maybe I can save it. Oh let me see.

Pizazz Gate. Yeah maybe that will get by the censors. Yeah, that's the ticket. Pizazz Gate. So anyway, what's your point. here. The camera was moved or something. By who and why and when.

Asking who what why and when is self investigation and should and can not be taken seriously.

You sir, are a fake news source and should be censored. Only professionals like CNN can report real news, asking such questions.

Thank you for the 'sir', but I do not understand the rest of your suggestions above. How do you suppose that I am a fake news source? As far as the rest the who and what etc, it seemed to me our op was being rather vague on exactly what his intentions were with the thread by suggesting that we speculate on a wide range of possibilities from just the reported moving of the camera. But censor me if you wish.

a reply to: roadgravel

The enclosure is pretty universal, whether its manually set and focused or if its remotely operated remains to be seen. I'd imagine its manual due to use on a corner, they may have multiple in the same intersection pointing down all directions.

My 2 cents is just the tampering probability is low because of the way they open.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
I just love posting on these, 'not pizzagate' threads. Opps, there, I've done it now. Maybe I can save it. Oh let me see.

Pizazz Gate. Yeah maybe that will get by the censors. Yeah, that's the ticket. Pizazz Gate. So anyway, what's your point. here. The camera was moved or something. By who and why and when.

This thread is not about that which shall not be named.

It is about an actual person involved in an actual event.

And the questions being asked are *very* good questions.

The answers should be easy to find. I'm sure there are historical records of what that camera views and when, if it had ever been moved in the past and when, and who gets to decide that it should be moved and under what circumstances?

Pretty basic and simple stuff...if one has nothing to hide that is.

a reply to: Riffrafter

I wonder at the deliberateness of this. Everyone who watches any cop show on TV knows that there are cameras that watch retail shops, day in and day out. And those are not even conspiracy people, or people concerned about the surveillance state. Just everyday citizens.

What could have been the motive to move the camera at that time. There is none I can think of. To not have it record something? Something that would have more easily been hidden by NOT DOING IT IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA???

The insinuation of the op is that this guy was an actor hired by someone to play a role where he would be the fall guy and go to prison at least while going to trial. That he is an actor. Big deal. Have you seen his credits? Hardly an actor at all. What he did did not require acting. So why would the people behind this deal, hire a guy with any acting credits at all. Makes no sense. I don't know about you but it would take a whole hell of a lot of money for me to take a fall like that.

Something doesn't look right to me, if it's indeed the same camera shooting both images, then what happened to the crosswalk paint bars in the pic aimed towards the pole? The bars are there in the 'now and before' pic, but completely erased in the 'changed angle' pic featuring the pole.

It sure looks like a completely different camera to me, not the same camera panned to an extreme.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You have to be looking with your eyes closed in order to not see that connection as having odd timing.

a reply to: DarkmadnessOne might easily suspect that Dark. But eyes closed? Maybe eyes open wider than some. I wonder in all the checking over that short period of time, if anyone checked out movement on a much broader time scale. Or checked out possible movement of OTHER cameras in the area. I would bet not.

But mostly, I cannot see motive for that stunt. As I mentioned above to Riff, what might 'someone' not wanted the camera to see? Something going on in front of the shop? Something in broad daylight that they wanted hidden? The easiest way to have done that would have been to NOT TO IT IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA.

a reply to: tjack

Crosswalk is still there not sure what you're referring to

a reply to: Butterfinger

I agree, gov cameras are low bidder driven installs. It'd be unusual to have PTZ on traffic cam. Oversaw installation of many similar fixed units that required manual adjustment for cam direction in equally cheap building management. PTZ was only used for areas where single unit replaced many fixed cams, making it cost effective such as wide area coverage of parking lots. All automobile entry/exit and traffic was fixed unit.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: DarkmadnessOne might easily suspect that Dark. But eyes closed? Maybe eyes open wider than some. I wonder in all the checking over that short period of time, if anyone checked out movement on a much broader time scale. Or checked out possible movement of OTHER cameras in the area. I would bet not.

But mostly, I cannot see motive for that stunt. As I mentioned above to Riff, what might 'someone' not wanted the camera to see? Something going on in front of the shop? Something in broad daylight that they wanted hidden? The easiest way to have done that would have been to NOT TO IT IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA.

That's why someone in a position of authority to ask, needs to get *all* of the records pertaining to that camera. It is that simple.

As to your second question - of course the answer is that there may have been something going on in the area that the camera normally covers that "someone" didn't want on video.

Sine qua non.

Lacking information as to the camera's history, I will say that the timing of the movement of this particular camera at that particular time is *HIGHLY* coincidental.

And I learned a long time ago, there are very few actual coincidences in this reality - especially when it pertains to people.

So to go back to Latin, lacking further info at the moment the key question becomes:

Cui bono?

Who benefits?

a reply to: RiffrafterWho benefits? indeed. The people who wanted to hide something from the camera. What could that have been , right there in front of the store that the camera might have recorded. Are we to suppose that with all the news about this lately, and all the interest, that the people who would conduct nefarious activity to be hidden would move the camera rather than conducting that activity elsewhere?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: RiffrafterWho benefits? indeed. The people who wanted to hide something from the camera. What could that have been , right there in front of the store that the camera might have recorded. Are we to suppose that with all the news about this lately, and all the interest, that the people who would conduct nefarious activity to be hidden would move the camera rather than conducting that activity elsewhere?

You're not really asking that in a serious sense, are you?

I had you pegged for someone with a better mind than that.

Fine - If you need to bury a story under the guise of "Fake news caused a crazy guy with a gun to show up and start shooting" so that no one looks again at the source of said news - James Alefantis, 49th most powerful person in Washington according to GQ, huge democratic donor and bundler, and who also had some horrifying images on his business instagram account - then this would be a good way to try and bury it - n'est pas?

Open your eyes....just a little bit.

This needs to be investigated.

Again - Cui Bono?

originally posted by: Riffrafter
That's why someone in a position of authority to ask, needs to get *all* of the records pertaining to that camera. It is that simple.

For what exactly? To see some crazy guy walk into a business with a weapon? They caught him already, no need to see any camera footage.

Then again maybe you or others are suggesting it would prove the incident never in fact took place in which case you would be instantly labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist that spreads fake news.

In either case 100% waste of time....

a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

Are you having a reading comprehension issue?

I don't think anyone is saying that the event did not take place. What we are saying is that the reasons given for the event may not be as stated. The only people saying it didn't happen are those who are attempting to make it out as though that is what is being said by those of us asking questions. In other words, you're engaging in a straw man tactics.

The reason for wanting more footage from the camera that was moved just prior is to see how often this camera is moved. Does it mainly stay where it is presently (with a view of the front of the restaurant) or does it move on other occasions?

If it mainly stays focused on the street in front of the restaurant, then we know it being moved is out of the ordinary. If the move was out of the ordinary, then there is a good possibility it is in relation to the event described.

If it does move on occasion, then the moving may not have anything to do with the event. The next question would be when it does move, does the move match the one that was made during the event? Has it ever been faced that way before? How often does it move?

If you think it's such a waste of time, what about your posting in the thread?



For the person continually asking why not do whatever they don't want seen in by the camera elsewhere, what if it's something that has to be done there?

Again, if we had a history on the camera, we would know if its being moved was normal for it or not; if it is not normally moved that raises other questions (see above) that need answers.

You are aware that this whole thing was made up right?

originally posted by: damwel
You are aware that this whole thing was made up right?

Are you saying the camera was not moved?

You do know that's the topic of this thread, right?

Or are you saying this person did not go to the pizza place and discharge a firearm?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm saying the comet pizza story being tied to pedo rings was made up. Why would anyone move a camera when a nut goes crazy over a fake story?

a reply to: damwel

I'm saying the comet pizza story being tied to pedo rings was made up.

Ok, but that's not the topic of the thread.

As to why move it, well that would depend, but we need answers to other questions as well, see this post for a list of other such questions.

If it move all the time, then it moving might not indicate anything out of the ordinary. If it does not move, then the camera being moved now would be an outlier. Anything out of the ordinary demands closer scrutiny.

Can you say if the camera has been moved before this event?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012
If you think it's such a waste of time, what about your posting in the thread?

Why the camera this and why the camera that......you act like JFK was shot where that camera was supposed to be pointed at that exact time.....seriously get a grip.

There are certain times when a persons desire to have some questions answered about a given event are somewhat justified but in this case...IMO.....total waste of time.

Oh by the way I don't remember the OP saying with 100% proof that was the exact camera at THAT location and could prove it. Maybe the turned camera is a fake picture or a different location....

It's ok though let the why why why drive you mad with something so trivial that even the basis for the topic hasn't been proven to begin with.