Roy Moore's accuser has admitted to faking the yearbook.

a reply to: Greven

Yet, here he is carelessly sweeping the revolver over the crowd.

That's the second time you have told that untruth. Please look at the video you posted.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: face23785


You know damn well almost no one remembers everyone they've encountered their entire life. That's got to be 10s if not 100s of thousands of people.

Of course I don't remember everyone I met in my life, the random people I never met again. He is not being asked to remember random people but possible children he may have dated, not asked out but dated.

I am pretty sure most remember who they dated but I can't say for certain it is factual.

originally posted by: DrakeMorningstar

originally posted by: Justoneman



Al's own party is full of that type of scum

There is no way you can state as fact. The few stories you may have would probably equal the stories I can find on republican child abusers but does that make their party "full of them", nope.

Ok, the Repugnican RINO"s are total scum too to be fair to the lefist.

originally posted by: Justoneman


Ok, the Repugnican RINO"s are total scum too to be fair to the lefist.

You're not being fair to either party. Both parties have their scum and decent people.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

I said it looked ridiculous. It does.

Then I guess I look ridiculous too. I wear a black Stetson Durango (personally reshaped) everywhere I go, even around home. I like western shirts.

And he did NOT "sweep the gun across the crowd." He brought it up from his pocket pointed into the air, and returned it the same way.

TheRedneck

Perhaps, but it's not the hat I'm concerned with. I'm from a long line of ranchers and farmers in Oklahoma, and there are plenty of cowboy boots and hats in that... but not so many vests.

He certainly did sweep barrel of the revolver across the crowd. Look closer.

He took it out of his pocket with the barrel down. He's facing to the right and raises it with the barrel pointed to the right of the screen, and holds it pointed skyward. Right may have been a safe direction, though it appears Bannon comes onstage from that direction shortly after.

The obvious problem is when he returns the revolver to his pocket. The barrel is pointed into the air, as he naturally lowers it by swinging the barrel down. Yet, this time he's facing the crowd - so it sweeps downward right at them.

a reply to: DrakeMorningstar

Even if I remembered them upon additional thought, the chance is that most of the girls I have dated I would not remember immediately, especially from their married names, nor would I likely remember them from a recent photograph.

We're talking 40 years ago, here!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DrakeMorningstar

originally posted by: face23785


You know damn well almost no one remembers everyone they've encountered their entire life. That's got to be 10s if not 100s of thousands of people.

Of course I don't remember everyone I met in my life, the random people I never met again. He is not being asked to remember random people but possible children he may have dated, not asked out but dated.

I am pretty sure most remember who they dated but I can't say for certain it is factual.

Sounds like he dated a lot of women. Seems perfectly reasonable to forget a few, especially if you only went out with them once or twice.

originally posted by: DrakeMorningstar

originally posted by: face23785


You know damn well almost no one remembers everyone they've encountered their entire life. That's got to be 10s if not 100s of thousands of people.

Of course I don't remember everyone I met in my life, the random people I never met again. He is not being asked to remember random people but possible children he may have dated, not asked out but dated.

I am pretty sure most remember who they dated but I can't say for certain it is factual.

I could say that, I dated only a few and met my bride after only a couple of girlfriends.

But I have a couple of friends who would have dated a few a day where the girl would show up to his place and I would have to go......Money had that affect and looks do too, i have neither compared to those two guys. They got into all kinds of trouble having 'fun' with that type but those types exist. Not being a babe magnet I can't say for sure... LOL I do know a few story's on them that would embarrass them for sure.

a reply to: Greven

He took it out of his pocket with the barrel down. He's facing to the right and raises it with the barrel pointed to the right of the screen, and holds it pointed skyward. Right may have been a safe direction, though it appears Bannon comes onstage from that direction shortly after.

Yes.

The obvious problem is when he returns the revolver to his pocket. The barrel is pointed into the air, as he naturally lowers it by swinging the barrel down. Yet, this time he's facing the crowd - so it sweeps downward right at them.

He does not lower it forward, instead lowering it to the right (in front of his body). You stated he "swept the crowd" which is obviously untrue from even a casual look at the video.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

He took it out of his pocket with the barrel down. He's facing to the right and raises it with the barrel pointed to the right of the screen, and holds it pointed skyward. Right may have been a safe direction, though it appears Bannon comes onstage from that direction shortly after.

Yes.

The obvious problem is when he returns the revolver to his pocket. The barrel is pointed into the air, as he naturally lowers it by swinging the barrel down. Yet, this time he's facing the crowd - so it sweeps downward right at them.

He does not lower it forward, instead lowering it to the right (in front of his body). You stated he "swept the crowd" which is obviously untrue from even a casual look at the video.

TheRedneck

I think you need to watch the video closer; it's kind of hard to see as the Fox footage fades as he lowers the revolver - you see this transition already at this point:

Also, that red below the banner is a person in a red hat at the front of the crowd.

Perhaps we have different definitions of swept. What do you think it means?

a reply to: Greven

I did watch it closely, as I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The movement was fluid but quick, and the barrel of the gun was obviously pointed to the right in the same general direction as it was when he pulled it out.

I define "sweeping a crowd" as moving the gun in a manner that places the barrel in direct aim at several people in that crowd during the sweep.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
I guess we're back to our lying eyes, then, if picture and video evidence is going to be disagreed with.

You might notice a second later in the video that red hat person is not nearly the furthest to the right.

Also, I wrote:

sweeping the revolver over the crowd.

I did not omit 'over' as you do here.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: Liquesence
Adding notes beneath what someone writes is not forgery.

Thread and article title are Intentionally misleading.

Well it is implied that Gloria Allred knew that this case could be dismissed because of evidence tempering and that's why she refused to hand over the yearbook. She put the whole case in jeopardy now. I don't give a f#ck about Roy Moore but this sure looks like a political hit job.

What "case?" There is no "case."

Unless you mean the divorce case, but that's irrelevant to the sexual accusations, of which there is no "case."

So we don't handle these things in court anymore? J

Not when the statute of limitations has passed and there can't even be a criminal case.

Ah, but her shady lawyer is demanding a Congressional investigation, before she will allow the so-called "evidence" to be examined. That alone is enough to call this whole thing BS.

Not to mention, the woman looks totally fake, in her crocodile tears interview. If this was real, they'd allow it to be proven. It's BS, and everyone knows it.

a reply to: Greven

I guess we're back to our lying eyes, then

I guess so. I simply saw nothing in that video that I took as unsafe. The gun was never pointed toward the crowd.

TheRedneck

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That's another good point. Moore's lawyers have officially requested the yearbook be subjected to forensic analysis of the handwriting and ink, with assurances that a chain of custody would be kept and all experts would be approved by both parties. Yet, she has decided instead to turn it over to the Senate Ethics Committee, which obviously cannot happen until after the election, and who has no real power to do anything about it anyway. It is not an allegation from his time in the Senate, so there is no jurisdiction.

This way, she can claim she is willing to present her evidence, but in reality she is delaying the examinations until after the election. We all know these allegations will disappear after Moore is elected. They always do.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

There will be riots if Moore wins and is not seated.

Really? There are enough child rapist and pedophile supporters to riot?

How does that riot work? Do they whip candy at children and tell them to get in their cars?

There is a reckoning coming for those that support this and his kind for partisan purposes.

Get your facts straight. One, she didn't even accuse him of rape. Two, she claims she was sixteen at the time, which is the age of consent, and was then, in Alabama. Sixteen isn't a child. Three, there is no proof he did anything at all. Four, stating that one believes these accusers are liars, collected to affect an election, does NOT make people "child rapist and pedophile supporters".

"Partisan purposes"? You have no room to talk in that regard.

originally posted by: TheAiIsLying
I read a comment somewhere, can't remember where, that made the point that the signature actually looks more like Ray rather then Roy. If you read the yearbook message and end it with Ray it rhymes.

Here's a link with a good image of actual Roy Moore signatures in comparison to the yearbook.

cowgernation.com...

Maybe we need to be looking for some guy called Ray. He'll clear this up.

That image alone shows this yearbook thing is faked! Far too many differences in the signatures. Anyone claiming she's telling the truth needs to check the image, and compare.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

There will be riots if Moore wins and is not seated.

Really? There are enough child rapist and pedophile supporters to riot?

How does that riot work? Do they whip candy at children and tell them to get in their cars?

There is a reckoning coming for those that support this and his kind for partisan purposes.

Get your facts straight. One, she didn't even accuse him of rape. Two, she claims she was sixteen at the time, which is the age of consent, and was then, in Alabama. Sixteen isn't a child. Three, there is no proof he did anything at all. Four, stating that one believes these accusers are liars, collected to affect an election, does NOT make people "child rapist and pedophile supporters".

"Partisan purposes"? You have no room to talk in that regard.

Judge Moore was just trying her as an adult...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That's another good point. Moore's lawyers have officially requested the yearbook be subjected to forensic analysis of the handwriting and ink, with assurances that a chain of custody would be kept and all experts would be approved by both parties. Yet, she has decided instead to turn it over to the Senate Ethics Committee, which obviously cannot happen until after the election, and who has no real power to do anything about it anyway. It is not an allegation from his time in the Senate, so there is no jurisdiction.

This way, she can claim she is willing to present her evidence, but in reality she is delaying the examinations until after the election. We all know these allegations will disappear after Moore is elected. They always do.

TheRedneck

Everything they do shows this is a hit job, and not an honest accusation. Plus, if this was all true, when he was in the spotlight for the Ten Commandments issue, someone would have brought it up then, to discredit him. That hey didn't speaks volumes.

Then there is this, for which someone already posted a link -


source

One doesn't have to be a pro to see the differences! Plus, the added in "DA", which she'd have had on legal paperwork, and which didn't happen unless an assistant he had many years later, but not then, signed for him. Clearly, she assumed that was about him being a deputy DA, and didn't even realize that he would not have signed "DA", since that wasn't his position.

LOL on the mixed relationships comment. As a Tennessee native, I find that hilarious!

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

There will be riots if Moore wins and is not seated.

Really? There are enough child rapist and pedophile supporters to riot?

How does that riot work? Do they whip candy at children and tell them to get in their cars?

There is a reckoning coming for those that support this and his kind for partisan purposes.

Get your facts straight. One, she didn't even accuse him of rape. Two, she claims she was sixteen at the time, which is the age of consent, and was then, in Alabama. Sixteen isn't a child. Three, there is no proof he did anything at all. Four, stating that one believes these accusers are liars, collected to affect an election, does NOT make people "child rapist and pedophile supporters".

"Partisan purposes"? You have no room to talk in that regard.

Judge Moore was just trying her as an adult...

No evidence of any involvement from him, with her, at that time. Plenty that she's lying. Check the image just posted for some of that. Add in that, as others pointed out, she wasn't even correct on where the car could have parked, and also wasn't even employed where she claimed, etc. When you top that with her poor acting, she's got no credibility whatsoever.