Reading post 667291 in main thread: Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other

Go to thread: Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other
January 14th, 2014  
For some odd reason, my 'puta will not "quote" posts nor allow me to use the "Advanced editor" so until I resolve it, my posts will often be in the format of this post below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
Today is fast approaching 45 deg. C. outside
(about 115deg. F.) , so I have a good reason to stay indoors to re evaluate some of VD's pathetic posts which I normally only give a cursory glance, having seen and disproved most of them before. And I must add, that in view of what I have found today, I should do it far more often, but alas I have a real life to lead, away from my computer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
Originally Posted by VD
This "video" needs some explanation: My bloody oath it does,....

I sugest you download it and view it frame by frame
(I have downloaded it, and viewed it frame by frame, (Thank you for the suggestion as up until now I had taken your answers at face value. I won't do that again) and your version shows frame numbers at least 100 lower than mine, so obviously you are viewing a poor quality video or using a poor editor)
shot is fired at frame 607 (00:24.280)
Actually there is evidence of muzzle blast on the frame prior to that shown below but I won't argue over 0.031 of a second. Note the difference in frame numbers VD states 607 and mine is at 723

guy with white shirt scares up at frame 610 (00:24.440) Useless "padding" of no consequence to the video whatsoever.
"demonsrtator" lift his left foot at frame 613 (00:24.520)More useless padding.
video blurs at frame 615 (00:24.600)More useless padding.
video sharp again at frame 645 (00:24.960)More useless padding.
video blurs again and veers to the left at frame 627 (00:25.080)More useless padding.
last blurred frame at 631 (00:25.240)More useless padding.
next frame "demonstrator" on the ground at 632 (00:25.280)More useless padding.
the "demonstrator's" unharmed foot is seen in frame 633 (00:25.320) Is it?..... how do you arrive at that conclusion?

Here we see the frame that VD claims shows the unharmed foot. I fail to see how VD claims can see through the foot to see an injury sustained from above whilst the victim was standing, by looking at a very blurry image of the sole of his shoe which is in shadow (There's more about this later), perhaps this is a special skill only available to Israeli shills, because to me, it is nothing short of miraculous. And there's even more about this later,.... (Stay tuned folks, there's exciting times ahead)

Originally Posted by VD
the way the soldier holds the weapon when fired he can impossible hit the "demonstrator's" foot which B’Tselem said was a rubber coated metal bullet. Under the Israeli forces’ rules of engagement, rubber bullets are to be used only from a distance of 50 metres or more, to avoid piercing the skin. This was from 1 meter and his foot did not show any signs of injury. Like always with such videos (and photos) it is shot in close up style and important pieces are missing. You do not see the "demonstrator" fall.
Pallywood again?
They propably fired to scare him without hitting the "victim".
Impossible to hit the demonstrators foot, eh? (More about this later too. ) So,... if what you suggest is true how do you explain the fact that the IDF charged those two lumps of sh!t involved and found both of them guilty? Yes, I know that it was only investigated after a public uproar as always, but it seems that even the IDF could not credibly dispute the available evidence.

This also makes your attempted lie about only being used at ranges of 50 metres or more look even more stupid than usual. No,... certainly not Pallywood , more like a "VDs Lies Production" I'd say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

Now! having given you a short while to reflect upon the fact that you have again been caught lying, with all the guile and lack of skill of a 5 year old, I would ask you to examine the enlarged clip taken only seconds after your miraculous view of an "unharmed foot", starting at 0.28sec, as the victims foot slowly falls to his left exposing the sole of his shoe to the direct sunlight, and perhaps explain the exit hole on the sole of the victim's shoe. It is very clearly visible from 27.561secs. to 33.099secs., with the exception of about 7 frames where the camera moves it out of frame. (nearly 80 frames)

In view of the fact that you claim to have spent the time and effort to view the video "frame by frame" quoting a lot of old lies about how you could allegedly see and diagnose all manner of miraculous things, I fail to see how you could have missed THIS,..... I certainly didn't.

I really MUST look at VD's posts more far closely and far more often,... he is obviously far less skilful at his trade as an Israeli shill than we have been giving him credit for. I guess that's one of the major downfalls of taking him at face value instead of realising that he is in fact, no more than a blatant and unabashed liar.
Please go to the main thread linked at the top here to read the rest.
(c)02-16 Military - Post # 667291