Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
"TOOFLESS"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JimmyD" data-source="post: 168675" data-attributes="member: 9832"><p>No one could figure it out ( ..or they were pretending, intentionally being negligent). So, considering that I am an excellent problem solver when applying myself, I decided to do exactly that and play insurance adjuster.</p><p></p><p>I dug up a bunch of facts and credible relevant information, calibrated measurements, broke it down to a very high degree of accuracy and applied my best calculus and analytical skills in reconstructing the events of that fateful morning. I really went through a lot of trouble, made damn sure and double checked everything.</p><p></p><p>Math doesn't lie. I'll spare the technical jargon and summarize. It basically boils down to three possibilities. Either...</p><p></p><p>A - The driver tried to beat the light and hit her at about 10+ mph above the speed limit.</p><p>B - They coordinated to create an accident, faked it.</p><p>C - Someone or thing altered space/time or otherwise manipulated the environment in order to make it happen.</p><p></p><p>Even more interesting is the legal aspects of the whole ordeal. Looks like a con game to me.</p><p></p><p>It is apparent, after dissecting everything, that whoever(the cops) made the technical report, failed miserably in terms of accuracy, neglected to include a lot of crucial information. This is rather odd to me, especially considering the importance of it and the trial and all. It just seems they would have put a bit more effort into it on account of the need for accuracy.</p><p></p><p>The trial was interesting as well. First of all, any experienced attorney, such as the prosecutor in question, would know better than to charge someone with something they would most likely not be convicted of. A smart attorney would know to try a lesser charge that was more likely to result in victory. It's almost as if it were an intentional legal blunder. I'm no legal expert and I would know better than to do that.</p><p></p><p>And what's with his new cushy made up job position after that? "We don't need one of those, but we'll hire one anyway, and pay them an unusually high salary". ...Seriously?</p><p></p><p>And not only that, but the circumstances suggest that the defense and/or cops knew the difference in the math, that they chose to be negligent and ignore the range of possibility that the driver may have tried to beat the light. In other words; looks like the defense and pigs presented 'evidence' and argued that the driver was doing everything safely and simply made an honest mistake, while the prosecutor intentionally argued what would assuredly result in acquittal.</p><p></p><p>It Iooks like a controlled outcome. And when considering all the other things, how it all fits together with the bigger picture and anomalies and such, it suggests that the above answer is B; they faked it in order to accommodate whatever the hell was really going on.</p><p></p><p>It's all so subtly odd.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JimmyD, post: 168675, member: 9832"] No one could figure it out ( ..or they were pretending, intentionally being negligent). So, considering that I am an excellent problem solver when applying myself, I decided to do exactly that and play insurance adjuster. I dug up a bunch of facts and credible relevant information, calibrated measurements, broke it down to a very high degree of accuracy and applied my best calculus and analytical skills in reconstructing the events of that fateful morning. I really went through a lot of trouble, made damn sure and double checked everything. Math doesn't lie. I'll spare the technical jargon and summarize. It basically boils down to three possibilities. Either... A - The driver tried to beat the light and hit her at about 10+ mph above the speed limit. B - They coordinated to create an accident, faked it. C - Someone or thing altered space/time or otherwise manipulated the environment in order to make it happen. Even more interesting is the legal aspects of the whole ordeal. Looks like a con game to me. It is apparent, after dissecting everything, that whoever(the cops) made the technical report, failed miserably in terms of accuracy, neglected to include a lot of crucial information. This is rather odd to me, especially considering the importance of it and the trial and all. It just seems they would have put a bit more effort into it on account of the need for accuracy. The trial was interesting as well. First of all, any experienced attorney, such as the prosecutor in question, would know better than to charge someone with something they would most likely not be convicted of. A smart attorney would know to try a lesser charge that was more likely to result in victory. It's almost as if it were an intentional legal blunder. I'm no legal expert and I would know better than to do that. And what's with his new cushy made up job position after that? "We don't need one of those, but we'll hire one anyway, and pay them an unusually high salary". ...Seriously? And not only that, but the circumstances suggest that the defense and/or cops knew the difference in the math, that they chose to be negligent and ignore the range of possibility that the driver may have tried to beat the light. In other words; looks like the defense and pigs presented 'evidence' and argued that the driver was doing everything safely and simply made an honest mistake, while the prosecutor intentionally argued what would assuredly result in acquittal. It Iooks like a controlled outcome. And when considering all the other things, how it all fits together with the bigger picture and anomalies and such, it suggests that the above answer is B; they faked it in order to accommodate whatever the hell was really going on. It's all so subtly odd. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
"TOOFLESS"
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top