Really weird sh*t going on at the Supreme Court for months. If stuff goes down, don't be caught dead betraying the Constitution

Oh for God's sakes

I was in signal processing; show me what you think has been doctored and I'll let you know if I think it's conclusive.

Scientific method means abeying your "that's impossible" attitude till you've given the evidence a level try. And fyi - in complement to all the visual fakes that have already gone one, you can see the case here: https://www.neonrevolt.com/2019/03/26/breaking-scotus-big-secret-rbg-newq-qanon-greatawakening-neonrevolt/

All we've had in months, when she could have easily stood out front on the steps once, is two pieces of media-parroted doctored "recording." I argue that's not jack.

No. I'm asking to run my own analysis on the evidence.

What speech did you analyze? I'll download it from public records and run a Fourier transform on it myself. Because frankly, QAnon "experts" have shown themselves over and over again to be sloppy in their analysis.

Time. Date. Session. I'll find it and analyze it. No links to prior analysis because after all the bullshit QAnon has tried to pedal, they don't have the privilege of putting things on good faith.

Dishonesty is nice? You're not even following the logic of the discussion.

Oh yeah, and when you can discuss the shell structure of nucleons with me or the relativistic energies of particulate cosmic rays, you can suggest I have no use for science. Until then, consider yourself caught in your own intellectual dishonesty.

Seriously, Octavia?

The quality of your posts has really gone to shit :-/

The cringe alone is oustanding.

Put up or shut up. Skip your altie propaganda rag spiel, and and let Mikki have a go at the actual REAL material, Mr Hawking.

I did take the initiative and wade through the verbage of the claim post. As is normal with this sort of thing, it is riddled with chatty rhetoric to stimulate confirmation bias - but I did find a tangible claim in there that I could work with.

In short (because if nobody else will summarize it, I will): SCOTUS oral arguments, March 20th. On the claim post's audio it's at 21:35, on the SCOTUS website audio it's more like 21:08, but Kagan tries to interrupt the plaintiff with a question, which she then repeats a minute later. The claim is that this is a copy and paste edit job.

We'll all be shocked - SHOCKED! - to learn that it isn't. No discontinuities in the ambient noise, no discontinuities in the white noise, it's just not there.

B-B-But Breitbart said she's a wax mannequin animatronic CGI tape loop and yadda yadda....

I'm beginning to suspect that certain susceptible people that checked out the TRUMP 2016 BECAUSE WE ALL NEED THE LAUGH website in 2016 got hit with one of those high pitched almost-beyond-the-range-of-normal-human-auditory-fields frequency blasts that turn people into crazed ravenous robo-zombies with a thirst for all things Trump and Reeses Pieces. I've seen movies like that on the alt right favorite documentary station, the SyFy Channel.

All kidding aside, I do thank you for you for taking the time to check this bizarre matter out.

I wish I could settle the whole thing entirely, but if it's not one thing it's another with these guys. Next, she ordered a pizza from Anthony Weiner's attorney and they raided the laptop that bleached the hacked cables that harvested organs from pedophile gangs and that's why Michael Jackson was murdered or something. And it's just a matter of time before Trump exposes it all.

Let's not forget CIA agent David Hogg who was also interviewed by the Galveston Daily Gazzette when Robert Kennedy got shot and also did makeup for John Wilkes Booth the day Lincoln got his and the false flag op of Tiananmen Square which was a cover to give Mrs & Mr Obama their Mr & Mrs switharoo sex reassignement procedures so that future President Obama can usher in the eventual takeover of the United States by Al Queda plus the time Hostess went out of business so their stilled factories can be used as training facilities for members of said Al Queda and of course the planted fake Tweetter that got Rosseanne Barr fired so that her show can be used for LGBT brainwashing of people in recovery at Alcoholic Anonynmous meetings so they can take away White Privilege from billionaires making pee pee tapes in Russian hotels/brothels.

Just as Nostradamus predicted!

switcharoo*

Don't want the OP, CPR01, to bust me on my typo and thusly win his argument that the Supreme Court is nothing but a CNN hoax.

Nostradamus AND Dione Warwick's Psychic Friends Network, as well as a Ouija Board once when I was 11 or 12.

Speaks for itself. The prosecution has no further questions.

Sci stuff just rebuts Octavia's BS; he/she is normally capable of better.

And he/she is capable of answering for him/herself without your constantly jumping on the leg.

Oh, and the material was already cited further down.

Sorry for the constant needles in your balloons, but you just keep proving yourself a waste of time.

Aww, 4 (or is it 5? 6 by the time I post this?) comments from a triggered tin foiled nutter who added a big ferocious he/she nudge for extra awesome emphasis.

Don't forget to catch my typos so you can continue to deflect.

And take your meds.

You can use he/him for me.

Never came up in conversation :)

Oooooh, did you now? :-D

There's no axiomatic disconnect, so non sequitur.

If you disregard the extreme immaturity and trollings of vagabondsouffle, you'd note I did so immediately. I expect no applause for the just correction of your implication to the contrary however.

That's the received wisdom from the herd mentality. I argue however that once you've seen how absurdly easy it is to commit agenda-driven deception on a large scale, it opens your eyes to the possibility that you may have assumed many other things on an unsustainable Occam basis that don't hold up to the assumption under scrutiny. I find great value in assuming less.

They'll only accept scrutiny of clips that they produced themselves, not an independent verification from public source material.

Did you not even bother looking? The clips are included on the page.

Not much point in knowing how to run a Fourier decomposition if you can't even be bothered opening a link.

Right, I've had a look at your link.

There was a ton of superfluous information on there BECAUSE IT IS JUST SOME GUY'S BLOG which I did tell you, didn't I?, that would be an unprofessional way to tackle this so thanks for that waste of time.

The claim centers around the oral arguments in the Supreme Court dated March 20th. That is publicly downloaded from the SCOTUS website.

The claim is that at 21:25 you can hear an audio of Kagan interrupting RGB that is repeated at 22:35.

Now, to people who listen to SCOTUS debates often, this is not uncommon. Kagan tried to get a question in edgeways, failed to interrupt the current line of conversation, and then about a minute later she got her chance to repeat her question - there really is no mystery here.

But the question was, is there a cut in the audio at 21:25? If there is, then all my complaining in the world won't change the presence of an audio editing.

And it appears that I used the exact same software that your friend did. I enclose a snapshot of the image on this comment.

An edit has a high-frequency spike on the Fourier spectrum. It's a thin bright red vertical spike that you can't miss. This is a discontinuity of the audio. It is impossible to eliminate this discontinuity in most audio edits. You can shorten it, you can phase shift it, but it's always there unless you cut at a moment of complete silence (because it also shows up when you cut ambient noise and white noise). Some people try to filter down the high frequencies at the cut to hide this, but that also looks very distinct because a lot of high frequency reverberations are supposed to be there naturally.

And it is not there in the spectrum of the audio in question. All you can see is the regular frequencies of three people talking at once.

And if you take a closer look at your friend's blog, he's not even claiming a discontinuity. He's claiming the frequencies of the audio overlap. Well, yeah, that's because the same person is trying to say the same words in the same tone of voice! It doesn't mean anything if there's no interruption.

So, not only were you completely 100% off on this, but you were also obnoxiously obstinate about submitting your evidence for verification - and that's worse! That means you don't even care if your line of argument is right or not!

And what infuriates me most about you Q brats. You act like you're smarter than everyone else but your standards of proof are abysmal.

I assume the Fourier spike is a result of an abrupt position of the amplitude on the channel, or is it an indicator of an abrupt shift in the prevalent frequencies themselves?

"you were also obnoxiously obstinate about submitting your evidence for verification - and that's worse!"

Actually that's demonstrably false - which IS worse. I gave the data source immediately on request - despite the obnoxious lies and trollery of vagabondsouffle - and you failed to recognize it. Your bad, not mine.

"Q brats." Okay, no discrepancy with your otherwise reasonable attempt to examine technicals :::-/ And "You act like you're smarter than everyone else" is pure unsustainable bunk. Opinion independent of yours = proof of condescension by those with the temerity to hold such an opinion :::-/

So I argue it's not that you lack technical qualifications, it's that you lack the intellectual integrity to cogently sustain real debate. I appreciate the observation, but I maintain the RBG point remains more than cogent and plausible, and I find you not equal to the much more elemental non-technical basics of coherent sequenced logic. Unsurprising really since you admit you're not capable of discussing these without "infuriation."

But thanks anyway. Time tells all tales true in any case.

The information I requested was "March 20, 21:25" and the source was the Supreme Court audio archives. IT WAS NOT A SEVEN HUNDRED WORD ESSAY ON OPINIONATED NONSENSE IN WHICH SOMEWHERE IS BURIED THE RELEVANT INFORMATION and it is past time you learned the difference. If you want to be taken as "real debate" then it's on you to present the important information that verifies your claim; you CANNOT start with a conclusion and tell the other people to do the work of proving it - that's just not how debate works and besides that, people don't have the time and you're not entitled to shape how they spend their time.

The Fourier spike is a result of any discontinuity in the sound signal or any of its gradient derivatives - even if you match the position of the signal, the change in acceleration or even the change in the acceleration of the acceleration is unnatural; think of a race car's acceleration suddenly jumping and you're expected to believe there was no kind of boost involved; how many car chases have you seen in film where the continuity of who was gaining on who was ruined by the editing? The Fourier transform of a discontinuity contains equal-amplitude coefficients of infinitely high frequencies, meaning that to restore the analogue signal you would never be able to stop adding more frequencies - i.e. you can't restore the signal using pure sinusoidal sounds. With most naturally occurring sounds, the high-frequency components of the sound become unimportant and can be ignored - which is why we only need to hear from a range of 20-20kHz.

Your wider point about whether or not Ginsburg is still alive is, at this point, entirely dependent on what you're willing to believe about the world. In the absence of hard evidence, we can claim what we like - lizard men, chemtrails, vaccinations are psychic aliens controlling us through wormholes in space - you are free to believe it, but at some point, there is a line beyond which we can't take anything seriously unless you can actually prove it. You're willing to believe that the Supreme Court can be displayed through some sort of Weekend At Bernie's style theatre; I'm not.

If I give you a link and say the files are there, it just doesn't seem that hard to me.

Thanks for the clarification on the transforms; the more simply put inference from what you say is that the various component waves are not in phase on either side of the junction and therefore detectable, that's useful.

And I not only look at evidence for the paranormal but the spectrum of complex social dynamics and agendas surrounding the control of information and assumptions. If you go by wikipedia and 95% of the academics out there, as a case illustration, ufos are nothing more than unsubstantiated weather balloons, jupiter, helicopters, and swamp gas.

Those of us who have observed them and can describe in detail the physical laws they violate also happen to know that the academics and their doctrine are so full of shit it's coming out their ears at high pressure like the gulf blowout and will have to vent for a very long time to ever regain equilibrium.

This is equally true for many other things for which it's falsely asserted as consensus that no further evidence exists. I don't aim to convince you, but I do maintain you and a lot of other people may discover to your shame someday how astoundingly much you claimed was tinfoil hattery in fact was not.

Chew on it or don't bother, your choice.

There's better evidence that penguins can fly (BBC entertaining 4/1 "clip" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4 ) - than that RBG isn't deader than Enron.