The American Constitution

[Peter McLennan]

I was referring to post World War II.

Oh, well then. The greatest, possibly the most important war in history doesn't count. (s)

In any case, Premiere Elements allows you to create a video in interlaced or Progressive. I know when I put in slides I can select 24 or 30 frames per second and then select the output. Also I sometimes down Resolute from 4K video to 2K video which would be 1080. But for some reason 1080p won't assemble while 1080i will. Now the question is if the original was interlaced or Progressive, can you change it over to the opposite when you publish the video? I really don't know.

Interlacing originates with acquisition - ie the camera.  It is possible to de-interlace footage with software, which is what Premiere is offering you and which is apparent in the poor quality video submitted by the American defense people.  I don't think you can interlace non-interlaced footage.  Nor can I think of a reason why. It's a hack.  An engineering cheat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video

To return to the whatever-it-is topic of this thread: It's interesting that some of America's allies are refusing to interpret the video the way the DOD suggests.


"Germany, in particular, specifically said the Centcom video was not enough to prove Iran is to blame".

“The video is not enough. We can understand what is being shown, sure, but to make a final assessment, this is not enough for me,” German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told reporters in Oslo"

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/448670-us-iran-tensions-deepen-five-things-to-know-about-oil-tanker-attack

[Alan Klein]

Do as you like. But it's not a Democratic committee, it is described as bipartisan in the article and one of the main points is how hard the GOP members on it are working because they are worried about Trump's foreign policy moves. I thought it might provide some food for thought, is all.

It's laziness to post a link to an article or video and tell people to watch it without making its salient points in your post.  Who has time to read every link posted by every TOm Divk and Harry?  You should be making it's basic arguments in your post, then provide the link for reference. 

Thank you for summing it up in your second post. Regarding Republicans who oppose his foreign policies, this has been true from the start from when he ran for President.  Many Republican neocons who got us into Iraq, and want conflict with Russia, have joined Democrats in opposing Trump.  That's why he beat the Republicans who ran against him during the Republican nominations.  These same Republicans hate Trump because he overthrew the Republican (and Democrat) hold on American government.  He wasn't part of the inner circle of politicians allowed to run America.  The "deep state".   remember it was Republicans who originally started the dossier on Trump, not the Democrats.  The Democrats under Hillary Clinton took over after Trump won the Republican nomination.   Main stream Republicans hate Trump.  So anything they do with the Dems such as in that article you linked too are suspect.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I hope you realize what you are reading in these posts are talking points from Fox News. Not much sense in trying to debate them.

Then what are you doing here?

Occasionally, just providing links might be useful. Occasionally. But this is a debate between LuLa meembers, not between Fox and MSNBC. Thus it is expected that members shall make their own point, not just link to something. As a minimum, there should be a sentence or paragraph describing the main point one is trying to make or the link is trying to make. Actually, it is a requirement established by the moderator of this site for posting outside links.

[Robert Roaldi]

It's laziness to post a link to an article or video and tell people to watch it without making its salient points in your post.  Who has time to read every link posted by every TOm Divk and Harry?  You should be making it's basic arguments in your post, then provide the link for reference. 

I thought I had said enough in the first instance to peak your interest, but I guess not. The vast majority of written articles contain a short preview in their headline or lead paragraph, so I tend not to want to repeat those, just hint at what the general topic is. To my mind, a click is not a big commitment to make when it has been suggested by someone who is participating in the discussion. I don't see that click as any more onerous than reading a summary that I may write.

Podcast and video links would require some explanation, I agree. Their content is not immediately apparent on a first click.

My reason for sometimes suggesting links to articles or podcasts is as a way of providing longer form information. A lot of what is actually written by people in forums such as these is rarely complete and not usually informative. So I post links to longer pieces written/presented by people knowledgeable in their fields as a way to further the discussion when I feel it has reached an impasse. I assume that some people are interested enough to want to read/hear more and so the links are there as reference. If they don't wish to do so, they don't need to follow the link.

[Alan Klein]

I thought I had said enough in the first instance to peak your interest, but I guess not. The vast majority of written articles contain a short preview in their headline or lead paragraph, so I tend not to want to repeat those, just hint at what the general topic is. To my mind, a click is not a big commitment to make when it has been suggested by someone who is participating in the discussion. I don't see that click as any more onerous than reading a summary that I may write.

Podcast and video links would require some explanation, I agree. Their content is not immediately apparent on a first click.

My reason for sometimes suggesting links to articles or podcasts is as a way of providing longer form information. A lot of what is actually written by people in forums such as these is rarely complete and not usually informative. So I post links to longer pieces written/presented by people knowledgeable in their fields as a way to further the discussion when I feel it has reached an impasse. I assume that some people are interested enough to want to read/hear more and so the links are there as reference. If they don't wish to do so, they don't need to follow the link.

Robert, I'm more interested in what your thoughts are then some writer from CNN or Fox for that matter.  Your summary shows what you consider important.  I want to hear about your guideposts about life and politics and photography.  That's what I want to know and respond too; not some other person's beliefs.  Anyway, I'm glad you did summarize in your follow-up post.  And I was able to respond to it without reading the original linked site.  Simple and more personal.

[Robert Roaldi]

I hope you realize what you are reading in these posts are talking points from Fox News. Not much sense in trying to debate them.

Providing links to longer form written/audio/video material is really by way of making sources of information available generally and isn't necessarily just aimed at the quoted writer. My assumption is that people engage in these kinds of conversations to learn something. I mean, people can't just be here because they think they're going to badger or insult someone else into seeing things their way. Who has that kind of time to waste. I occasionally come across articles or podcasts or videos and now and then it strikes me that one of those is relevant to the topic under discussion, and so I provide a link to that info under the assumption that people want to know more. Others have provided links to sources that I have gone on to look at and I very much appreciate it. It's not possible to curate everything out on your own.

[Alan Klein]

I hope you realize what you are reading in these posts are talking points from Fox News. Not much sense in trying to debate them.

That's a very dismissive statement.  Even insulting.  As if conservative thinkers can't think for themselves.  Only you can think for yourself.  In fact, the accusation you make I always hear on liberal outlets.  So it seems that's where you get your talking points.  If you really want to show what you know, make a cogent point against a conservative argument rather than accusing the writer of plagiarism.   Otherwise you sound like you're reading a CNN script rather than thinking independently. . 

[Alan Klein]

That "evidence" film was a joke; some of you are supposed to be photographers who understand these things: go look at the angles of the shots, and if they come from a satellite, then for some angles on the action it must have a clear view from the horizon, not above, or be an invisible, silent drone. I see little, if any, signs of flattened perspective such as distance would force.

(Even more unconvincing than the Moon, where I find myself wondering who shot the shot of the first footfall fom that angle, which kinds shows it to be, in fact, at least the second such step onto the surface.  ;-) )

As evidence of anything, it's evidence of poor photography. Or good photography designed to look stolen.

Trump can't go to war; it's his election pledge to bring the troop's back home. You know he keeps his promises.

But look at it this way: after he retires, like all the egos who seek such power, he and family will forever have to forgo privacy and endure the proximity of security agents. Long live anonymity!

The photos were shot from an American helicopter.  They didn't provide the distance.  The two pictures in this article do appear to show the same boat indicating it was Iranian.  Here are improved photos.  Probably Photoshopped so we especially can argue about that.  Regarding photos from the moon, they were shot with a Hasselblad 6x6 film camera, I believe. So obviously, America doesn;t always use it's own designed equipment. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/us-military-releases-new-images-of-japanese-oil-tanker-attack.html

[Alan Klein]

The picture with the notations taken from the helicopter seemed to indicate that the camera was aiming downwards 20 degrees from horizontal.  See the <-20 on the left.  Not too sure what the other markings mean.

[Robert Roaldi]

I'll apologize in advance because I'm about to provide another link to a lengthy podcast: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s. There is also a transcript provided but I don't know if it a complete transcript of the interview.

The subject matter is about how Pres Trump on many occasions seems to have taken foreign policy advice from the crown prince of the U.A.E. in opposition to his own advisors. The prince in question is good friends with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and both are avowed enemies of Iran. The interviewee assigns the increasing war of words against Iran to be partly because of their influence. The podcast give examples of where their advice is in opposition to the advice of US intelligence agencies. There are some interesting tidbits. U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia seem to be making overtures to Israel and UAE and Israel already have close ties in the security and military areas. News to me. The crown princes have done a good job convincing the US that the muslim brotherhood are "terrorists". This is odd on the surface because the brotherhood is a great backer of elections and as hereditary leaders, they are both kind of against elections. It seems odd for the US to be against elections but it wouldn't be the first time that they back non-obvious believers in democracy. This pattern would at least make one a little suspicious of the demonization of Iran. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, weren't they, or have they re-written the history books.

Anyway, my cynical comments aside, the podcast is very informative re long-term trends and politics in the area.

[James Clark]

I'll apologize in advance because I'm about to provide another link to a lengthy podcast: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s. There is also a transcript provided but I don't know if it a complete transcript of the interview.

The subject matter is about how Pres Trump on many occasions seems to have taken foreign policy advice from the crown prince of the U.A.E. in opposition to his own advisors. The prince in question is good friends with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and both are avowed enemies of Iran. The interviewee assigns the increasing war of words against Iran to be partly because of their influence. The podcast give examples of where their advice is in opposition to the advice of US intelligence agencies. There are some interesting tidbits. U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia seem to be making overtures to Israel and UAE and Israel already have close ties in the security and military areas. News to me. The crown princes have done a good job convincing the US that the muslim brotherhood are "terrorists". This is odd on the surface because the brotherhood is a great backer of elections and as hereditary leaders, they are both kind of against elections. It seems odd for the US to be against elections but it wouldn't be the first time that they back non-obvious believers in democracy. This pattern would at least make one a little suspicious of the demonization of Iran. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, weren't they, or have they re-written the history books.

Anyway, my cynical comments aside, the podcast is very informative re long-term trends and politics in the area.

For whatever reason, Robert, Saudi Arabia has long had an incomprehensible (to me at least) hold on the hearts of America's leaders.  I suppose that it was energy-related for awhile, but one could hope that with our newfound energy-independence via fracking, that there could at least be some silver lining to the rape of our ecology, but seems not to be so.   The case can be made that Iraq is the single largest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam (and potentially of the entire post WWI era), but we seem to have learned very, very little from it. 

The weird thing is that (and not to turn this into Trump bashing) Trump and his core group seem much more likely to want to do deals with the ME as opposed to starting wars, but then he goes and puts lunatics like Bolton and evangelicals like Pompeo in charge, who never met a war they didn't like, and embrace an insane Biblical view of Israel, respectively.  It's really quite frightening.

[Rob C]

Rob, you realize that you second sentence contradicts the first? Or, in other words, confirms Alan’s statement.

I don't think so. He simply refuses to listen to, or absorb the information from a specific set of opinions. Unless he gives them a hearing, how can he judge the value therein? He has no idea what that will be.

[Rob C]

The photos were shot from an American helicopter.  They didn't provide the distance.  The two pictures in this article do appear to show the same boat indicating it was Iranian.  Here are improved photos.  Probably Photoshopped so we especially can argue about that.  Regarding photos from the moon, they were shot with a Hasselblad 6x6 film camera, I believe. So obviously, America doesn;t always use it's own designed equipment. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/us-military-releases-new-images-of-japanese-oil-tanker-attack.html

Whether the shots of the "first footfall" were shot with a special 'blad or adapted Nikon, neither of which are American cameras, is not the point; the point is this: since shot from a position outwith that space vehicle, and as the drones were still in Captain Kirk's locker, then somebody else took that first step to get to camera position, not the cat in clown's diver's clothing playing the part for said camera.

Of course, as it was all shot in a crater on Lanzarote just next to another one in which was cultivated the traditional single vine of Malvasia, it remains academic...  They had a helluva time setting up the trampoline beneath the ash; every shot but three was ruined because of the rhythmic, vibrating patterns of the particles rising and falling back down in full accordance with Earthly gravitational norms. It was finally resolved through careful, traditional motion film retouching techniques back in NASA laboratories.

Don't you just love the power of photographs?

[Alan Goldhammer]

For whatever reason, Robert, Saudi Arabia has long had an incomprehensible (to me at least) hold on the hearts of America's leaders.  I suppose that it was energy-related for awhile, but one could hope that with our newfound energy-independence via fracking, that there could at least be some silver lining to the rape of our ecology, but seems not to be so.   The case can be made that Iraq is the single largest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam (and potentially of the entire post WWI era), but we seem to have learned very, very little from it. 

I suspect that a considerable amount of support for Saudi Arabia is a result of the anti-Iran focus of their government.  This is the meme in the whole Middle East where you have various branches of Islam, a small (area wise) Jewish state and sprinkled among these are a number of smaller Christian groups.  Back in the mid-1990s our next door neighbor who was French worked at the World Bank and Iran was one of the countries he regularly visited.  It was always illuminating to talk with him about how misunderstood the country was then (and probably still is).  Most everyone who could afford it watched pirated US television programs and wore US branded blue jeans.  It was only the theocrats who Khomeni brought into power when the Shah was overthrown who were virulently anti-American.  Maybe there are no good answers for this part of the world other than to get out and let them fend for themselves.

[Alan Klein]

I'll apologize in advance because I'm about to provide another link to a lengthy podcast: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/06/730339596/uaes-prince-mohammed-bin-zayed-s-growing-influence-on-the-u-s. There is also a transcript provided but I don't know if it a complete transcript of the interview.

The subject matter is about how Pres Trump on many occasions seems to have taken foreign policy advice from the crown prince of the U.A.E. in opposition to his own advisors. The prince in question is good friends with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia and both are avowed enemies of Iran. The interviewee assigns the increasing war of words against Iran to be partly because of their influence. The podcast give examples of where their advice is in opposition to the advice of US intelligence agencies. There are some interesting tidbits. U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia seem to be making overtures to Israel and UAE and Israel already have close ties in the security and military areas. News to me. The crown princes have done a good job convincing the US that the muslim brotherhood are "terrorists". This is odd on the surface because the brotherhood is a great backer of elections and as hereditary leaders, they are both kind of against elections. It seems odd for the US to be against elections but it wouldn't be the first time that they back non-obvious believers in democracy. This pattern would at least make one a little suspicious of the demonization of Iran. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, weren't they, or have they re-written the history books.

Anyway, my cynical comments aside, the podcast is very informative re long-term trends and politics in the area.

American Presidents listening to our CIA has not boded well for us.,  May I remind you it was our CIA that overthrew the elected government of Iran and installed the Shah who favored us better.  That led years later to his overthrowing by the Mullahs, their holding American hostages for over a year, the loss of the second presidential term of our Carter because of the hostages,  and our present problems with a clerical Iran.  It was also the CIA who said Saddam has WMD's in Iraq leading to our 2nd war there.  Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood has avowed to destroy Jews and Israel.  Also, Morsi. a Muslim Brotherhood leader, tried to rough house Egyptian democracy when he and the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt. 

You don't seem to be up-to-speed on these issues.  I wouldn't waste my time on an obviously prejudiced podcast.  Frankly, all Presidents should be wary of our own CIA.  If Obama was still president, you would be telling us how bad the American CIA is.  But since Trump is president, anything that opposes Trump is good in your book even if bad. 

Having said all that, I suspect that Israel is secretly working with Saudi Arabia to undermine their common enemy, Iran.  So Trump is listening to Israel when he listens to Saudi's. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Frankly, all Presidents should be wary of our own CIA.  If Obama was still president, you would be telling us how bad the American CIA is.  But since Trump is president, anything that opposes Trump is good in your book even if bad... 

Just look how virulently anti-Trump the former CIA director is. People like that (and like Comey in the FBI) are still there.

The role of CIA is not to formulate foreign policy, but to provide information to those who are elected to do so. Those providing the information are trying to insert their own slant to it.

I worked in the American embassy in Belgrade for seven years. I saw first-hand how information is gathered and interpreted at the grass-root stage, based on a particular embassy officer's worldview or his/her idea of which view is in vogue in Washington and what is going to get them promoted. I did not have access to the classified information, i.e., the final version of the report, but, as I said, I had a pretty good insight in the origins.

In other words, info coming from embassies, intelligence agencies, etc. should not be treated as the gospel, but just as one of the facets necessary for those elected to formulate foreign policy.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It was also the CIA who said Saddam has WMD's in Iraq leading to our 2nd war there.

Really? That's not how I recall it, and so doesn't the CIA's 2002 intelligence assessment:

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3

Cheers,
Bart

[James Clark]

Just look how virulently anti-Trump the former CIA director is. People like that (and like Comey in the FBI) are still there.

The problem you and others have is that you refuse to accept the *reasons why* upper level professionals in economics, journalism, international relations etc. are virulently anti-Trump.  There's a reason why newspapers like the Dallas Morning News, which had endorsed the conservative candidate for 50 years, refused to endorse Trump.  There's a reason why apolitical appointees that have served in D and R administrations refuse to support Trump, and it's not because he's "shaking up the establishment" or "draining the swamp."   It's because he's utterly incompetent and not fit for the office.  He's proudly ignorant and refuses to dig deep into policy, and he is incapable of consistency on the world stage. 

But, you say, "I like what he does.  I like deregulation and smaller government.  I think the border is a serious problem.  And for some reason I think he's responsible for the economy even though it's been on the exact same trajectory for 6 years now."   The thing is, you can have all of these things *without* electing someone patently unsuited for the job, but a faction of people *chose* this guy, and people that know better are incredulous. IT's not that they have betrayed conservative ideals, it's that *Donald Trump is incompetent.*

[Alan Klein]

The problem you and others have is that you refuse to accept the *reasons why* upper level professionals in economics, journalism, international relations etc. are virulently anti-Trump.  There's a reason why newspapers like the Dallas Morning News, which had endorsed the conservative candidate for 50 years, refused to endorse Trump.  There's a reason why apolitical appointees that have served in D and R administrations refuse to support Trump, and it's not because he's "shaking up the establishment" or "draining the swamp."   It's because he's utterly incompetent and not fit for the office.  He's proudly ignorant and refuses to dig deep into policy, and he is incapable of consistency on the world stage. 

But, you say, "I like what he does.  I like deregulation and smaller government.  I think the border is a serious problem.  And for some reason I think he's responsible for the economy even though it's been on the exact same trajectory for 6 years now."   The thing is, you can have all of these things *without* electing someone patently unsuited for the job, but a faction of people *chose* this guy, and people that know better are incredulous.

The alternative was Hillary Clinton. 

[James Clark]

The alternative was Hillary Clinton.

Who would have been a better choice.  A fact which at this point is painfully obvious.  Honestly, I can't even figure out what the complaint would be now.  Before it was how you can't trust her - she lies.  Or how her Clinton Foundation was supposedly corrupt. Or OMG her emails.  I mean, Trump has done all of those things and far worse just since assuming office.  And of course his supporters don't care now.  Surprise.  The debt ceiling?  Non issue.  Unauthorized personal electronic device? So what. Trump Foundation?  Actually forced to dissolve under court supervision.  And on and on and on and on.

The hypocrisy is astounding.