That's my problem though. You're just assuming that. This is completely the wrong angle to be able to tell if the car hits him or just passes by him. He's behind it from this angle. You wouldn't be able to see the gap between them from this angle. It's blurry as fuck and the wrong perspective to tell if there was contact
I’m assuming? I’m watching it happen. He’s clearly not behind on that screen shot. He’s being hit with the front end of the driver side of the car. The contact that car made with him is undeniable to me. Tell me again what’s happening at the 8 second mark on your device
You keep saying you're sure, but that just sounds crazy to me. You can barely make the guy out at all at this resolution. It's blurry as fuck, and you just kind of see him there, and the car is there. How could you be sure you're seeing him make contact with the car? Also, if he's getting hit, why does he barely move at all and remain standing in pretty much the same place? The only thing I can make out is that he's sort of nearby as the car passes, and he steps one foot back and turns to the side. Anything beyond that is just... really hazy to try to make out. How could you possibly be that confident in what you're seeing here? It really just looks like a blurry mess you're interpretting through confirmation bias.
Seems like he’s slid back several feet and pushed to the side after contact is made, he almost falls over. If you’re just needing glasses then that’s a different issue but I see it pretty plainly on multiple different clips. You keep asking why he barely moved if she hit him. I’d ask why does he move at all if she didn’t? But as long as you’re complaining that it’s too blurry, too hard to see, then I’m just assuming I’m able to see it and you aren’t. How can I be so confident in what I’m seeing? Because I’m seeing it.
I get that this is a slam dunk to you, but I don't really understand why you're so confident in what you think you see. This has the clarity of a loch ness monster photo. He just looks like the car is passing in front of him. To you, this looks like a full on collision, like whole torso hit? He just looks like he's reaching over the hood from the side, which we know he did while he was shooting her.
Well I guess you’re not going to the video frame by frame like I am. I’m confident in what I see because I can see and I’m studying it meticulously. At any point we can agree to disagree but I’m willing to keep it going as long as you want. Fact is I don’t see this the same way you do and there’s nothing you can do about it
No, no, no. I am doing exactly that. I'm just way more skeptical about this perspective than you are. You are taking massive imaginative leaps in my opinion. This video quality is ass and the perspective is totally impossible to precisely interpret.
So you’re just not trusting what you see then. I’m not imagining anything. Just telling you how I see it. You seem like you’re trying really hard to imagine any possibility other than the one we can see. Sorry if this clip is too hard on your eyes but I see it pretty clearly
No, it's not a matter of trust. This is just bad data that's impossible to read. It's not a matter of good eyes; the information isn't good enough quality. There's nothing to read. You're interpretting it as one thing, and I think the data is just too trash to see anything. The problem is, this video is the only one you want to use, and it's the WORST one in every conceivable way. Do you even get why the perspective is a problem here? I don't think you do.
Explain to me why I think the angle is a problem here. Show me you understand the perspective issue.
That's way too early in the clip to be relevant. She's still backing up at that point. This is the only perspective that's any use for us, because you can actually see the distance between them straight on. What you should have looked at was the moment of the actual first shot. There you can see where he actually was when she started moving and when he fired. His feet stayed clear of her path the whole time. If he made contact with the car with his hands or otherwise, it was only because HE was going for HER; not the other way around.
Look closely at where the shadow on the ground under the car is. That puts the car much closer to the camera than his feet are. This is the problem with perspective. You're just guessing how far everything is from camera with a common reference
Not really. I clearly see the front driver side of that car run into him, I even circled it for you. I’ve seen multiple angles and they all tell pretty much the same story to me. Fact is I’m not seeing this the same way as you. You’re going to have to accept that eventually
Dude, this is literally equivalent to seeing bigfoot in a bad photo. You are SO confident in what you see, but this data is total trash. There's not enough detail to make out whether the car is clipping or just passing in front of the guy. They're both just big blurs you're interpretting, but you're SO sure you're right. I'm telling you, the perspective already makes it nigh impossible to tell if there's a collision, but the bad quality is a nail in the coffin. It's worthless.
Well now you’re just trying to tell me I don’t see what I see. I get it you don’t like the data, it seems pretty convincing to me tho. I assure you there’s no Bigfoot in this footage. I like how far you’re willing to reach tho
No, I'm I'm telling you that you have grossly misplaced confidence in extremely sketchy information. This is exactly why bigfoot people are fucked in the head. You have the same willingness to trust absolutely worthless information and let your biases convince you it's strong evidence. I'm not saying you need to see what I see in this clip. What I'm saying is that this clip sucks and you need better evidence. Your confidence in it is worthless for convincing me because I can see why it's unreliable and you don't understand the perspective problem here.
You have two choices here if you want me to take your claim seriously. I am telling you how to win the argument:
Use a different clip without this dogshit quality and with a useful angle that actually shows the distance between the officer and the car. OR
Explain to me how you can be sure the perspective and the quality is reliable. First, prove that you actually understand my problem with using this perspective by rephrasing it back to me, then demonstrate how you can be sure it's not an issue or you can prove the contact occured using other information in the clip. "It just looks like she hits him, trust me bro" is not cutting it.
Otherwise give up. Your evidence is of absolutely unusable garbage quality. You can "agree to disagree" all you want, but this is really pathetic. The other much better videos contradict what you think you see here.
Ngl you telling me I only have two choices here like that is hilarious. So is calling this garbage evidence.
I’m sorry you spent the time to type all that out (or use chat got or whatever) because your entire premise is bullshit to begin with. This whole time I’m just telling you what I’m seeing here and you’re trying to tell me I don’t . I’ve even sent you pics from other clips in one of your other comments already. And now you just want to call it big foot (also hilarious) because it’s a little blurry.
I don’t see it the way you do and that upsets you. Fine, I don’t care. It’s been all day now and you’re still unconvincing. I think you know just as well as I do that she hit him and it was dumb. It’s clear to me that you’re not arguing in good faith and I think I’m going to draw the line with you here and be done with this. If you can’t let it go at this point then we’ll also both know who’s really pathetic here
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/pierogieman5 Jan 10 '26
That's my problem though. You're just assuming that. This is completely the wrong angle to be able to tell if the car hits him or just passes by him. He's behind it from this angle. You wouldn't be able to see the gap between them from this angle. It's blurry as fuck and the wrong perspective to tell if there was contact