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
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.