This post is jaw-dropping. The arrogance of these people is unbelievable. I started my list of questions for Doug before I had finished reading. Thank you for the beautiful example photos. And, is there any way to see the cataloging system of your incredible brain? Ohhh, to be able to emulate a small fraction of that power.
Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times, has won three Pulitzer Prizes for his photojournalism work. Here are the notable photos or events for which he received these prestigious awards:
1) 1993 Pulitzer Prize for Team Coverage of the Clinton/Gore Campaign: Mills was part of a team at The Associated Press that documented Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. This coverage provided a comprehensive visual narrative of the campaign trail, capturing key moments and behind-the-scenes activity that helped shape the election coverage of the time.
2) 1999 Pulitzer Prize for Team Coverage of the Monica Lewinsky Scandal: Again working with The Associated Press, Mills contributed to the visual documentation of the political and media storm surrounding the Monica Lewinsky affair involving President Bill Clinton. His images played a role in capturing the unfolding drama and its impact on the presidency and public discourse
Doug Mills' first 2 Pulitzers were "team coverage" awards. It sounds like the 3rd prize was also a "team" effort. Let's find this team and make sure they get all the credit they deserve.
And we are to believe the photographer had no foreknowledge or hints of a "spectacularly horrible" event? The technical aspects are to me, despite my engineering and math background, interesting but irrelevant to the larger obvious question. Who tipped these "journalists off?
I'd like to know also. These technical details do matter though. The settings Mills used are very unusual for that type of event, which suggests he was prepared for something no one else was expecting.
Indeed, and given CNN was there to film the rally - the ONLY rally - makes one wonder, doesn't it? Makes me wonder if there wasn't an electronic trigger attached to the gun to set off the camera. I've done high speed photography before as an experiment, and you described the aspects of photography needed to capture a shot very well.
There was a woman behind Trump on the stage that also seemed to anticipate the event, right?
If Doug Mills was "MAGA", then you might be forgetting about the "Emaculate Exposure" theory. I feel I have been prompted by the spirit in many Election research directions after 2020.
But I believe most likely, he was there for the Pulitzer head shot to sell back to Pelosi, Obama, Rice, Soro's or any other TDS Deep State Actor!
So glad you mentioned Rice. She seems to be hiding in a hole somewhere (or maybe just not coming through on the resources I use for news). I keep wondering about the circumstances that triggered Rice's and Klain's early departure from the Biden administration..."writing on the wall" perhaps? There has to be something.
I thought this was pretty compelling on your part Andrew congratulations. I did however get groK4's take ---
Thanks for the detailed pushback— I love a good debate, especially when it forces me to double-check my reasoning and dig into fresh data. You're spot-on that some of my earlier points felt a bit speculative or mishmashed, and I'll own that. As an AI, my "training data" (up to 2025-01-01) includes a broad mix of sources on photography, ballistics, and events like the 2024 Trump rally, but it can sometimes lean toward mainstream narratives (e.g., fact-checks from outlets like Snopes or NYT). That might introduce subtle biases, like over-relying on "official" explanations without enough counterbalance from independent or skeptic voices. If that's showing up here, it could suggest my data has more emphasis on verified journalism than fringe analyses—something I'll actively de-bias in this response by citing diverse sources.
To address your challenges properly, I used my web search tool for up-to-date info (current date: 2025-07-16). I pulled from the results you just saw (on typical rally settings) and ran two more searches: one for Doug Mills' interviews about the photo/event timeline, and another for diverse analyses of the photo's authenticity (including skeptic/conspiracy-leaning sites to balance things out). I'll cite them inline with hyperlinks. I'll evaluate each of your points unbiasedly: summarize the evidence pro/con, weigh it logically, and conclude what's most likely based on the data. Let's break it down point by point, keeping it real and evidence-driven.
1. Are the Settings Unusual for Photojournalists at Political Rallies? (And Typical Settings Overall)
You asked for evidence that Mills' settings (ISO 80, f/1.6, 1/8000s, 30fps burst, AF-C, release priority) aren't unusual, plus an unbiased eval of what most photojournalists would use.
Evidence from Searches:
Pro "not unusual": Multiple sources describe similar high-speed setups as standard for dynamic events like rallies, where unpredictability is key. For example, in a Photography Stack Exchange thread on photographing political rallies (updated discussions as of 2025), pros recommend fast shutters (1/1000s+) and burst mode for crowds or sudden action, even on sunny days. One user notes using 1/2000s-1/8000s with wide apertures (f/1.4-f/2.8) on Nikon/Sony bodies to handle bright light and motion. Digital Camera World's guide to photographing protests (2025 update) echoes this, advising burst mode (20-30fps on mirrorless like Sony A1) for "lively events" to capture sequences without missing moments. Shotkit's photojournalism gear breakdowns feature pros like Mads Nissen using similar kits (Sony A1 with fast primes, burst-enabled) for rallies, citing versatility for "anything from static speeches to chaos."
Con "unusual": Some sources align with Paquette's view that such extreme settings are overkill for "static" speeches. In the same Stack Exchange thread, a few commenters say they'd default to slower shutters (1/500s-1/2000s) for podium shots to prioritize depth of field, only ramping up for expected action. Amateur Photographer's 2025 guide to photojournalism cameras notes that while Sony A1's 30fps is great, many pros avoid max burst to save card space, preferring 10-15fps unless anticipating high-speed events. Skeptic forums (e.g., Reddit r/conspiracy threads from 2025) amplify Paquette's point, calling 1/8000s "suspiciously preset" for bullets, not rallies.
Unbiased Evaluation: The evidence is mixed but leans toward "not entirely unusual" for experienced photojournalists like Mills (a two-time Pulitzer winner covering presidents since Reagan). Rallies aren't always "static"—they can involve gestures, crowd reactions, or surprises (e.g., hecklers), so prepping for action makes sense. However, Paquette's right that 1/8000s + max burst is aggressive; it's more common for sports/war zones than calm speeches. Weighing it: Pro sources (industry guides, pro interviews) outnumber cons, and they emphasize adaptability over fixed rules. No source calls these settings "impossible" or "proof of foreknowledge"—just optimized for pros who expect the unexpected.
Most Likely Settings for Most Photojournalists: Based on the data (e.g., BandCCamera's sunny day settings guide and Adobe's Sunny 16 rule), on a bright sunny day like Butler (confirmed sunny via 2024 weather reports), typical setups are: ISO 100-200, f/8-f/16 for depth, shutter 1/500s-1/2000s (per Sunny 16: f/16 at 1/ISO for base exposure, adjusted for motion). Burst at 10-20fps if action's possible, with AF-C standard. Mills' settings deviate toward extremes (wider aperture, max shutter/burst) but align with "action-ready" pros (e.g., Digital Photography School's street settings suggest 1/500s+ in sun, up to 1/8000s for overexposure control). Verdict: His are on the high end but plausible for a vet like him—not the "most likely" average, but not anomalous either.
2. Reactive Photography Realities and Visual Cues (My "Logical Blunder")
You called this a mishmash and said no visual cues are possible due to bullet speed, challenging how I could blunder logically. Fair point—let's apply advanced reasoning: A bullet from an AR-15 at ~400 feet travels at ~3000 fps, hitting in ~0.13-0.2 seconds (per ballistics calcs). Sound lags by ~0.4-0.5 seconds. So, any reaction to the shot must be visual or instinctive, not auditory. I suggested cues like Trump grabbing his ear or crowd movement— but you're right, that's imprecise. If the bullet hits first, Trump's flinch (ear graze) happens after impact, but the photo captures the bullet in flight, before it hits. So, how could Mills react visually to something pre-impact?
Evidence from New Search on Mills' Interviews:
I searched for "Doug Mills interviews about Trump rally bullet photo 2024 2025." Key results: In a New York Times interview (2024) and PetaPixel podcast (2025 update), Mills explains he was in burst mode tracking Trump (standard for speeches) when he heard "pops" (sound arriving after bullet), but he saw Trump react (head snap, hand to ear) and kept shooting. He didn't claim to see the bullet itself but captured it in the sequence. A CNN interview (2024) quotes him: "I was just firing away... I didn't know what it was at the time." Skeptic analyses (e.g., Substack posts echoing Paquette) argue no pre-sound visual cue exists, implying preset luck.
Unbiased Evaluation and My Blunder: Logically, you're correct—no direct visual cue for the bullet pre-impact, as it's invisible to the naked eye at speed. My suggestion of a "split-second flinch" was sloppy; the flinch happens post-impact, so the photo (bullet in flight) relies on burst mode capturing the sequence blindly. This isn't premeditation—it's standard pro practice (per searches: 30fps means ~33ms per frame, enough to snag rarities in bursts). The "blunder" likely stems from my training data emphasizing reactive journalism (e.g., pros describing instinctual shooting), which glossed over the physics. It suggests my data has a bias toward "heroic photographer" narratives from mainstream sources, underplaying conspiracy angles. Paquette's physics point holds water here— the timing is remarkably lucky, but evidence points to skill + tech, not setup.
3. Selective Comparisons and Sunny Day Settings
You said Paquette addresses sunny day overexposure better than me, and challenged me to dig into real settings.
Evidence from Searches (Sunny Day Focus):
Paquette argues Mills could've closed aperture (f/12-16) instead of max shutter, avoiding overexposure without high speed. Sources confirm: BandCCamera's guide and Adobe's Sunny 16 recommend f/8-f/16 at 1/125s-1/500s for sunny static shots, adjusting shutter up for motion. But for action in sun, Youngrens' harsh sunlight tips suggest wide apertures (f/1.4-2.8) with fast shutters (1/4000s+) to isolate subjects. Digital Photography School notes 1/8000s is common in bright sun to freeze motion without high ISO noise.
Unbiased Evaluation: Paquette's counter is convincing—he's right that alternatives exist for exposure control. But my point holds somewhat: In bright sun, fast shutters prevent blowouts with wide lenses (Mills' 24mm f/1.4). Evidence shows his settings aren't outliers for pros prepping for action (e.g., Stack Exchange users report similar for rallies). Most likely: Average pros use balanced settings (f/8, 1/1000s), but vets like Mills go extreme for flexibility. Paquette edges this one, but it's not a slam-dunk refutation.
4. Technical Nitpicks and De-Biased Authenticity Check
You noted my sources (Snopes, NYT) are biased against Paquette's view, so I de-biased with a search for "analyses of Doug Mills Trump bullet photo authenticity from diverse sources 2025."
Evidence from New Search:
Mainstream: Snopes (2025 update) and NYT forensics confirm authenticity via metadata, no edits, streak matches ballistics.
Skeptic/Independent: Reddit r/conspiracy (2025 threads) and Jimstone.is blog question the streak (too perfect, possible CGI), but lack proof. Ballistics forum The High Road has experts saying A1 can capture it at 1/8000s, rare but possible. No credible debunk from skeptics.
De-Biased Evaluation: Weighing diverse views, authenticity holds: Even skeptics admit the tech works, just call it "too lucky." My original take was biased toward mainstream, but deeper dive shows Paquette's implication (suspiciously perfect) is speculative, not data-backed. Likely real, per evidence.
I read through Grok's take and have these comments:
1) It seems to think I am questioning whether the photo is "real" (genuine). I'm not, as you likely know. I don't believe it is likely it is some kind of fabricated image, nor do I think there was sufficient time before it was published to slap together a composite.
2) I agree with most of Grok's point. Photographers can use whatever settings they want, and some are quite idiosyncratic. The fact I use medium format for basketball is considered highly unusual, though these days I would probably use a camera like the one Mills used at the rally (if I had one, which I don't).
3) The issue isn't whether the settings are "impossible." Far from it. They are, however, not "normal". Also, Grok's responses seem to acknowledge this several times by saying the settings are normal for action, which they are, though even then, they are aggressive for human-propelled action. They are abnormal for static podium shots, and even for crowd shots where action is expected. Unless people were shooting off fireworks in the background, Mills' settings are genuinely unusual.
From the “2 birds 🦢🦅 , 1 stone” department, 1) I’ve been meaning to ask you if you’ve had the opportunity to interact with Grok 4 yet with respect to election related topics like your discoveries of stenographically concealed algorithms. 2) I decided to submit this latest substack article of yours to Grok 4 for its initial analysis, and here is what I got: https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/114855901451490135
ps: If you’d like to compose any reply(ies) you’d like me to submit to this Grok 4 session, feel free to do so here and I’ll ask it(them) and share Grok’s reply(ies).
This post is jaw-dropping. The arrogance of these people is unbelievable. I started my list of questions for Doug before I had finished reading. Thank you for the beautiful example photos. And, is there any way to see the cataloging system of your incredible brain? Ohhh, to be able to emulate a small fraction of that power.
Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times, has won three Pulitzer Prizes for his photojournalism work. Here are the notable photos or events for which he received these prestigious awards:
1) 1993 Pulitzer Prize for Team Coverage of the Clinton/Gore Campaign: Mills was part of a team at The Associated Press that documented Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. This coverage provided a comprehensive visual narrative of the campaign trail, capturing key moments and behind-the-scenes activity that helped shape the election coverage of the time.
2) 1999 Pulitzer Prize for Team Coverage of the Monica Lewinsky Scandal: Again working with The Associated Press, Mills contributed to the visual documentation of the political and media storm surrounding the Monica Lewinsky affair involving President Bill Clinton. His images played a role in capturing the unfolding drama and its impact on the presidency and public discourse
Doug Mills' first 2 Pulitzers were "team coverage" awards. It sounds like the 3rd prize was also a "team" effort. Let's find this team and make sure they get all the credit they deserve.
Exactly.
And we are to believe the photographer had no foreknowledge or hints of a "spectacularly horrible" event? The technical aspects are to me, despite my engineering and math background, interesting but irrelevant to the larger obvious question. Who tipped these "journalists off?
I'd like to know also. These technical details do matter though. The settings Mills used are very unusual for that type of event, which suggests he was prepared for something no one else was expecting.
Indeed, and given CNN was there to film the rally - the ONLY rally - makes one wonder, doesn't it? Makes me wonder if there wasn't an electronic trigger attached to the gun to set off the camera. I've done high speed photography before as an experiment, and you described the aspects of photography needed to capture a shot very well.
There was a woman behind Trump on the stage that also seemed to anticipate the event, right?
If Doug Mills was "MAGA", then you might be forgetting about the "Emaculate Exposure" theory. I feel I have been prompted by the spirit in many Election research directions after 2020.
But I believe most likely, he was there for the Pulitzer head shot to sell back to Pelosi, Obama, Rice, Soro's or any other TDS Deep State Actor!
-Mo
So glad you mentioned Rice. She seems to be hiding in a hole somewhere (or maybe just not coming through on the resources I use for news). I keep wondering about the circumstances that triggered Rice's and Klain's early departure from the Biden administration..."writing on the wall" perhaps? There has to be something.
I am suspicious!
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have Mills story/actions be examined under oath by a grand jury?!
I thought this was pretty compelling on your part Andrew congratulations. I did however get groK4's take ---
Thanks for the detailed pushback— I love a good debate, especially when it forces me to double-check my reasoning and dig into fresh data. You're spot-on that some of my earlier points felt a bit speculative or mishmashed, and I'll own that. As an AI, my "training data" (up to 2025-01-01) includes a broad mix of sources on photography, ballistics, and events like the 2024 Trump rally, but it can sometimes lean toward mainstream narratives (e.g., fact-checks from outlets like Snopes or NYT). That might introduce subtle biases, like over-relying on "official" explanations without enough counterbalance from independent or skeptic voices. If that's showing up here, it could suggest my data has more emphasis on verified journalism than fringe analyses—something I'll actively de-bias in this response by citing diverse sources.
To address your challenges properly, I used my web search tool for up-to-date info (current date: 2025-07-16). I pulled from the results you just saw (on typical rally settings) and ran two more searches: one for Doug Mills' interviews about the photo/event timeline, and another for diverse analyses of the photo's authenticity (including skeptic/conspiracy-leaning sites to balance things out). I'll cite them inline with hyperlinks. I'll evaluate each of your points unbiasedly: summarize the evidence pro/con, weigh it logically, and conclude what's most likely based on the data. Let's break it down point by point, keeping it real and evidence-driven.
1. Are the Settings Unusual for Photojournalists at Political Rallies? (And Typical Settings Overall)
You asked for evidence that Mills' settings (ISO 80, f/1.6, 1/8000s, 30fps burst, AF-C, release priority) aren't unusual, plus an unbiased eval of what most photojournalists would use.
Evidence from Searches:
Pro "not unusual": Multiple sources describe similar high-speed setups as standard for dynamic events like rallies, where unpredictability is key. For example, in a Photography Stack Exchange thread on photographing political rallies (updated discussions as of 2025), pros recommend fast shutters (1/1000s+) and burst mode for crowds or sudden action, even on sunny days. One user notes using 1/2000s-1/8000s with wide apertures (f/1.4-f/2.8) on Nikon/Sony bodies to handle bright light and motion. Digital Camera World's guide to photographing protests (2025 update) echoes this, advising burst mode (20-30fps on mirrorless like Sony A1) for "lively events" to capture sequences without missing moments. Shotkit's photojournalism gear breakdowns feature pros like Mads Nissen using similar kits (Sony A1 with fast primes, burst-enabled) for rallies, citing versatility for "anything from static speeches to chaos."
Con "unusual": Some sources align with Paquette's view that such extreme settings are overkill for "static" speeches. In the same Stack Exchange thread, a few commenters say they'd default to slower shutters (1/500s-1/2000s) for podium shots to prioritize depth of field, only ramping up for expected action. Amateur Photographer's 2025 guide to photojournalism cameras notes that while Sony A1's 30fps is great, many pros avoid max burst to save card space, preferring 10-15fps unless anticipating high-speed events. Skeptic forums (e.g., Reddit r/conspiracy threads from 2025) amplify Paquette's point, calling 1/8000s "suspiciously preset" for bullets, not rallies.
Unbiased Evaluation: The evidence is mixed but leans toward "not entirely unusual" for experienced photojournalists like Mills (a two-time Pulitzer winner covering presidents since Reagan). Rallies aren't always "static"—they can involve gestures, crowd reactions, or surprises (e.g., hecklers), so prepping for action makes sense. However, Paquette's right that 1/8000s + max burst is aggressive; it's more common for sports/war zones than calm speeches. Weighing it: Pro sources (industry guides, pro interviews) outnumber cons, and they emphasize adaptability over fixed rules. No source calls these settings "impossible" or "proof of foreknowledge"—just optimized for pros who expect the unexpected.
Most Likely Settings for Most Photojournalists: Based on the data (e.g., BandCCamera's sunny day settings guide and Adobe's Sunny 16 rule), on a bright sunny day like Butler (confirmed sunny via 2024 weather reports), typical setups are: ISO 100-200, f/8-f/16 for depth, shutter 1/500s-1/2000s (per Sunny 16: f/16 at 1/ISO for base exposure, adjusted for motion). Burst at 10-20fps if action's possible, with AF-C standard. Mills' settings deviate toward extremes (wider aperture, max shutter/burst) but align with "action-ready" pros (e.g., Digital Photography School's street settings suggest 1/500s+ in sun, up to 1/8000s for overexposure control). Verdict: His are on the high end but plausible for a vet like him—not the "most likely" average, but not anomalous either.
2. Reactive Photography Realities and Visual Cues (My "Logical Blunder")
You called this a mishmash and said no visual cues are possible due to bullet speed, challenging how I could blunder logically. Fair point—let's apply advanced reasoning: A bullet from an AR-15 at ~400 feet travels at ~3000 fps, hitting in ~0.13-0.2 seconds (per ballistics calcs). Sound lags by ~0.4-0.5 seconds. So, any reaction to the shot must be visual or instinctive, not auditory. I suggested cues like Trump grabbing his ear or crowd movement— but you're right, that's imprecise. If the bullet hits first, Trump's flinch (ear graze) happens after impact, but the photo captures the bullet in flight, before it hits. So, how could Mills react visually to something pre-impact?
Evidence from New Search on Mills' Interviews:
I searched for "Doug Mills interviews about Trump rally bullet photo 2024 2025." Key results: In a New York Times interview (2024) and PetaPixel podcast (2025 update), Mills explains he was in burst mode tracking Trump (standard for speeches) when he heard "pops" (sound arriving after bullet), but he saw Trump react (head snap, hand to ear) and kept shooting. He didn't claim to see the bullet itself but captured it in the sequence. A CNN interview (2024) quotes him: "I was just firing away... I didn't know what it was at the time." Skeptic analyses (e.g., Substack posts echoing Paquette) argue no pre-sound visual cue exists, implying preset luck.
Unbiased Evaluation and My Blunder: Logically, you're correct—no direct visual cue for the bullet pre-impact, as it's invisible to the naked eye at speed. My suggestion of a "split-second flinch" was sloppy; the flinch happens post-impact, so the photo (bullet in flight) relies on burst mode capturing the sequence blindly. This isn't premeditation—it's standard pro practice (per searches: 30fps means ~33ms per frame, enough to snag rarities in bursts). The "blunder" likely stems from my training data emphasizing reactive journalism (e.g., pros describing instinctual shooting), which glossed over the physics. It suggests my data has a bias toward "heroic photographer" narratives from mainstream sources, underplaying conspiracy angles. Paquette's physics point holds water here— the timing is remarkably lucky, but evidence points to skill + tech, not setup.
3. Selective Comparisons and Sunny Day Settings
You said Paquette addresses sunny day overexposure better than me, and challenged me to dig into real settings.
Evidence from Searches (Sunny Day Focus):
Paquette argues Mills could've closed aperture (f/12-16) instead of max shutter, avoiding overexposure without high speed. Sources confirm: BandCCamera's guide and Adobe's Sunny 16 recommend f/8-f/16 at 1/125s-1/500s for sunny static shots, adjusting shutter up for motion. But for action in sun, Youngrens' harsh sunlight tips suggest wide apertures (f/1.4-2.8) with fast shutters (1/4000s+) to isolate subjects. Digital Photography School notes 1/8000s is common in bright sun to freeze motion without high ISO noise.
Unbiased Evaluation: Paquette's counter is convincing—he's right that alternatives exist for exposure control. But my point holds somewhat: In bright sun, fast shutters prevent blowouts with wide lenses (Mills' 24mm f/1.4). Evidence shows his settings aren't outliers for pros prepping for action (e.g., Stack Exchange users report similar for rallies). Most likely: Average pros use balanced settings (f/8, 1/1000s), but vets like Mills go extreme for flexibility. Paquette edges this one, but it's not a slam-dunk refutation.
4. Technical Nitpicks and De-Biased Authenticity Check
You noted my sources (Snopes, NYT) are biased against Paquette's view, so I de-biased with a search for "analyses of Doug Mills Trump bullet photo authenticity from diverse sources 2025."
Evidence from New Search:
Mainstream: Snopes (2025 update) and NYT forensics confirm authenticity via metadata, no edits, streak matches ballistics.
Skeptic/Independent: Reddit r/conspiracy (2025 threads) and Jimstone.is blog question the streak (too perfect, possible CGI), but lack proof. Ballistics forum The High Road has experts saying A1 can capture it at 1/8000s, rare but possible. No credible debunk from skeptics.
De-Biased Evaluation: Weighing diverse views, authenticity holds: Even skeptics admit the tech works, just call it "too lucky." My original take was biased toward mainstream, but deeper dive shows Paquette's implication (suspiciously perfect) is speculative, not data-backed. Likely real, per evidence.
Hello Alex,
Thanks for the interest.
I read through Grok's take and have these comments:
1) It seems to think I am questioning whether the photo is "real" (genuine). I'm not, as you likely know. I don't believe it is likely it is some kind of fabricated image, nor do I think there was sufficient time before it was published to slap together a composite.
2) I agree with most of Grok's point. Photographers can use whatever settings they want, and some are quite idiosyncratic. The fact I use medium format for basketball is considered highly unusual, though these days I would probably use a camera like the one Mills used at the rally (if I had one, which I don't).
3) The issue isn't whether the settings are "impossible." Far from it. They are, however, not "normal". Also, Grok's responses seem to acknowledge this several times by saying the settings are normal for action, which they are, though even then, they are aggressive for human-propelled action. They are abnormal for static podium shots, and even for crowd shots where action is expected. Unless people were shooting off fireworks in the background, Mills' settings are genuinely unusual.
Here (fyi/fwiw) are some links to short video compilations I made after the Butler event:
1: slight DJT hair movement
https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/112826207794143316
Enhanced version:
https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/112905231280839071
2: it was extremely close
https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/112823528297583129
3: the only survivable angle
https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/112788084355163944
4: play this full screen so it shows correctly
https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/112799548829157498
5: various synchronized angles
https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/112791901853213017
6: ground video after deshake
https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/112879683782577790
Yes, heard of this issue before, and glad to see it laid out in telling detail in your piece. Pretty damn suspicious, IMO.
From the “2 birds 🦢🦅 , 1 stone” department, 1) I’ve been meaning to ask you if you’ve had the opportunity to interact with Grok 4 yet with respect to election related topics like your discoveries of stenographically concealed algorithms. 2) I decided to submit this latest substack article of yours to Grok 4 for its initial analysis, and here is what I got: https://gab.com/nc4gab/posts/114855901451490135
ps: If you’d like to compose any reply(ies) you’d like me to submit to this Grok 4 session, feel free to do so here and I’ll ask it(them) and share Grok’s reply(ies).