Today, we welcome back “Bits
and Pieces,” this blog’s way of covering stories that perhaps do not warrant a
full column’s worth of talk, but should still be spoken about here.
So without further ado, let’s jump right into it.
Alec Baldwin Movie Shooting: I am sure that you heard that actor Alec Baldwin was involved in a very suspicious movie shooting out west while shooting a new film.
He was given a prop gun, which supposedly was vetted for all safety protocols, told that it was “cold,” meaning that it was ready to go and cleared of all those safety protocols, he fired it and it had real bullets in it.
The bullet that he unwittingly shot killed one person and wounded another, and the investigation continues into another day about how what happened actually happened.
First, no matter how big a crumb Alec Baldwin is--his reputation precedes him--that does not make him somebody who would do this knowing that the gun had real bullets in it.
I have read so many negative things about Baldwin related to this unfortunate incident—including that he “got what he deserved” after making light of former vice president Dick Cheney’s errant hunting incidents in the past—that I have to think that people really have lost their minds when they come to this current incident.
A woman lies dead here, and that attitude simply trivializes what happened in the more current incident.
But back to the gun that Baldwin fired …
Who vetted this gun to make sure that it was OK for the actor to use? This hasn’t been made clear yet. I have heard that the prop master, his assistant—who I read was new to the field, and who admitted that she did not know a real bullet from a dummy bullet on sight—and the assistant director have all been named by various sources as culprits in this tragedy.
Well, who gave the final approval for the use of the gun? That should not be difficult to assess, but the problem is that from what I have read, there were other safety protocols that were not met on the set, this being simply the worst of them all.
And the next question is one I is so obvious, that I cannot believe that it has not been asked by anyone to my knowledge, and it is a question that must be asked and answered:
Why are Hollywood movie prop guns able to fire regular bullets in the first place?
These are supposed to be prop guns, which means that they are being used in place of real guns to make things more realistic on screen.
Then why are they able to shoot REAL bullets? What is the reason for the use of real bullets on a movie set?
You would think that the problem of making guns more realistic would have been addressed with all the advances in special effects that Hollywood has made during the past 40 years, but evidently not.
If these guns can shoot both blanks and real bullets, then aren’t they “illegal” per se and shouldn’t they be regulated by the state where the movie is being shot, so both the guns and the bullets stay on the set and do not filter into the regular population?
And again, why are these guns able to shoot real bullets when they are only supposed to be props?
The plot thickens. Stay tuned.
Gabby Petito/Brian Laundrie Story Gets Even Murkier: OK, they found the body of Gabby Petito, and she was strangled, and they found remains of supposed fiancé Brian Laundrie, a “person of interest” in her murder, and they have no idea what he died of.
They identified his remains by using dental records, so it is a safe conclusion that among the remains they found of his was his skull.
When he ventured out on a hike seemingly not with a care in the world when Petito vanished, I guess he thought he could use his survival skills to remain in that preserve for as long as he wanted to, but I think he found that Mother Nature was far more lethal than even he, a survivalist, could have imagined.
I saw an interview with someone who knew that preserve as well as anyone, and he said when it filled up with water, even for a survivalist, one wrong step could mean certain peril, because the water was so thick that it almost was like quicksand, and it would be impossible to keep your head above water if you stepped the wrong way.
That is probably what happened to Laundrie—he drowned and was eaten up, literally and figuratively—by the water, the weather conditions, and the wild animals that populated that area.
But funny, the FBI still only considers him as a “person of interest” in Petito’s murder, which also leads me to believe that yes, they found his DNA on Petito’s body—I mean, they were supposedly going to be married—and that they probably found other DNA on her body that they are still checking out.
She almost certainly put up a struggle in the process of being murdered, so I am sure forensics have looked at other areas of her body—including her fingernails—to assess that there is other DNA on her person … which means that Laundrie may not have been the one to have murdered her, and thus, he only was given “person of interest” status in her murder.
There were whispers before Petito was found—and after—that Laundrie had to have an accomplice to eluding police, and perhaps that person is the real culprit in this whole thing.
And it is still not clear how much Laundrie’s parents know about all of this—and for that matter, how much the Petito family really knows either.
There is something really fishy about this story, and it goes beyond the swamp in question.
Again, stay tuned for more on this story, because you just know that we haven’t heard the last of this.
Protestors Storm Barclays Center Supporting Kyrie Irving: Yesterday, prior to the NBA game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Charlotte Hornets, protestors supporting Kyrie Irving’s right to not get this shots against the coronavirus stormed Barclays Center, the home of the Nets, protesting the fact that the team has decided to not let him play until he gets his shots.
The scene was so chaotic that the venue was forced to be put on lockdown, with people already inside viewing the chaos just outside on their cell phones.
Look, as I said I am not for COVID-19 mandates, but the team decided, and decided rightly, that not only was it not going to allow Irving to play at home, but also he could not play at away games where such mandates are in force, including in Madison Square Garden in New York City and in San Francisco, where such a mandate also exists.
The team believed his presence—or non-presence—would be a distraction, but even when he wasn’t there, his situation became a distraction, leading to all of this chaos at the Nets’ home opener.
And when you know that one of the organizers of this supposedly “peaceful” protest was Black Lives Matter, you just know that this protest had nothing to do with Irving’s rights as much as it had to do with creating chaos and making this into a racial issue when it clearly isn’t.
White, black, brown, yellow, purple, pink and green … if you do not have your shots, you cannot play in an arena like Barclays Center or any indoor arena in New York City … PERIOD.
Whether that mandate is right or wrong is not the issue here. What is the issue is that Irving cannot play right now, until he does what many of his fellow NBA players—95 percent of whom are black—and other New Yorkers have done, which is to get their shots, whether they like it or not.
And to link Irving’s “plight” with that of hospital workers and others who are being forced to get their shots or lose their jobs is absolutely ludicrous.
Irving still maintains much of his salary while he sits, while these people who refuse to get their shots are stupidly risking their entire careers by dong so—they get no unemployment, most are losing their health benefits, and they are fouling up their retirements.
And the presence of BLM shows that this really is not about Irving, but another chance for this terrorist organization to get the ignoramuses among us to fall into line.
What a sad situation we are in now … and by the way, NO ARRESTS WERE MADE IN YESTERDAY’S INCIDENT, even though innocent security personnel were attacked by the "protestors," or rioters.
That is a symptom of current New York leadership, which turns the other way when crime is committed … and that, in itself, is another symptom of a decaying, lawless city, and another story for another day.
Speak to you again tomorrow.
So without further ado, let’s jump right into it.
Alec Baldwin Movie Shooting: I am sure that you heard that actor Alec Baldwin was involved in a very suspicious movie shooting out west while shooting a new film.
He was given a prop gun, which supposedly was vetted for all safety protocols, told that it was “cold,” meaning that it was ready to go and cleared of all those safety protocols, he fired it and it had real bullets in it.
The bullet that he unwittingly shot killed one person and wounded another, and the investigation continues into another day about how what happened actually happened.
First, no matter how big a crumb Alec Baldwin is--his reputation precedes him--that does not make him somebody who would do this knowing that the gun had real bullets in it.
I have read so many negative things about Baldwin related to this unfortunate incident—including that he “got what he deserved” after making light of former vice president Dick Cheney’s errant hunting incidents in the past—that I have to think that people really have lost their minds when they come to this current incident.
A woman lies dead here, and that attitude simply trivializes what happened in the more current incident.
But back to the gun that Baldwin fired …
Who vetted this gun to make sure that it was OK for the actor to use? This hasn’t been made clear yet. I have heard that the prop master, his assistant—who I read was new to the field, and who admitted that she did not know a real bullet from a dummy bullet on sight—and the assistant director have all been named by various sources as culprits in this tragedy.
Well, who gave the final approval for the use of the gun? That should not be difficult to assess, but the problem is that from what I have read, there were other safety protocols that were not met on the set, this being simply the worst of them all.
And the next question is one I is so obvious, that I cannot believe that it has not been asked by anyone to my knowledge, and it is a question that must be asked and answered:
Why are Hollywood movie prop guns able to fire regular bullets in the first place?
These are supposed to be prop guns, which means that they are being used in place of real guns to make things more realistic on screen.
Then why are they able to shoot REAL bullets? What is the reason for the use of real bullets on a movie set?
You would think that the problem of making guns more realistic would have been addressed with all the advances in special effects that Hollywood has made during the past 40 years, but evidently not.
If these guns can shoot both blanks and real bullets, then aren’t they “illegal” per se and shouldn’t they be regulated by the state where the movie is being shot, so both the guns and the bullets stay on the set and do not filter into the regular population?
And again, why are these guns able to shoot real bullets when they are only supposed to be props?
The plot thickens. Stay tuned.
Gabby Petito/Brian Laundrie Story Gets Even Murkier: OK, they found the body of Gabby Petito, and she was strangled, and they found remains of supposed fiancé Brian Laundrie, a “person of interest” in her murder, and they have no idea what he died of.
They identified his remains by using dental records, so it is a safe conclusion that among the remains they found of his was his skull.
When he ventured out on a hike seemingly not with a care in the world when Petito vanished, I guess he thought he could use his survival skills to remain in that preserve for as long as he wanted to, but I think he found that Mother Nature was far more lethal than even he, a survivalist, could have imagined.
I saw an interview with someone who knew that preserve as well as anyone, and he said when it filled up with water, even for a survivalist, one wrong step could mean certain peril, because the water was so thick that it almost was like quicksand, and it would be impossible to keep your head above water if you stepped the wrong way.
That is probably what happened to Laundrie—he drowned and was eaten up, literally and figuratively—by the water, the weather conditions, and the wild animals that populated that area.
But funny, the FBI still only considers him as a “person of interest” in Petito’s murder, which also leads me to believe that yes, they found his DNA on Petito’s body—I mean, they were supposedly going to be married—and that they probably found other DNA on her body that they are still checking out.
She almost certainly put up a struggle in the process of being murdered, so I am sure forensics have looked at other areas of her body—including her fingernails—to assess that there is other DNA on her person … which means that Laundrie may not have been the one to have murdered her, and thus, he only was given “person of interest” status in her murder.
There were whispers before Petito was found—and after—that Laundrie had to have an accomplice to eluding police, and perhaps that person is the real culprit in this whole thing.
And it is still not clear how much Laundrie’s parents know about all of this—and for that matter, how much the Petito family really knows either.
There is something really fishy about this story, and it goes beyond the swamp in question.
Again, stay tuned for more on this story, because you just know that we haven’t heard the last of this.
Protestors Storm Barclays Center Supporting Kyrie Irving: Yesterday, prior to the NBA game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Charlotte Hornets, protestors supporting Kyrie Irving’s right to not get this shots against the coronavirus stormed Barclays Center, the home of the Nets, protesting the fact that the team has decided to not let him play until he gets his shots.
The scene was so chaotic that the venue was forced to be put on lockdown, with people already inside viewing the chaos just outside on their cell phones.
Look, as I said I am not for COVID-19 mandates, but the team decided, and decided rightly, that not only was it not going to allow Irving to play at home, but also he could not play at away games where such mandates are in force, including in Madison Square Garden in New York City and in San Francisco, where such a mandate also exists.
The team believed his presence—or non-presence—would be a distraction, but even when he wasn’t there, his situation became a distraction, leading to all of this chaos at the Nets’ home opener.
And when you know that one of the organizers of this supposedly “peaceful” protest was Black Lives Matter, you just know that this protest had nothing to do with Irving’s rights as much as it had to do with creating chaos and making this into a racial issue when it clearly isn’t.
White, black, brown, yellow, purple, pink and green … if you do not have your shots, you cannot play in an arena like Barclays Center or any indoor arena in New York City … PERIOD.
Whether that mandate is right or wrong is not the issue here. What is the issue is that Irving cannot play right now, until he does what many of his fellow NBA players—95 percent of whom are black—and other New Yorkers have done, which is to get their shots, whether they like it or not.
And to link Irving’s “plight” with that of hospital workers and others who are being forced to get their shots or lose their jobs is absolutely ludicrous.
Irving still maintains much of his salary while he sits, while these people who refuse to get their shots are stupidly risking their entire careers by dong so—they get no unemployment, most are losing their health benefits, and they are fouling up their retirements.
And the presence of BLM shows that this really is not about Irving, but another chance for this terrorist organization to get the ignoramuses among us to fall into line.
What a sad situation we are in now … and by the way, NO ARRESTS WERE MADE IN YESTERDAY’S INCIDENT, even though innocent security personnel were attacked by the "protestors," or rioters.
That is a symptom of current New York leadership, which turns the other way when crime is committed … and that, in itself, is another symptom of a decaying, lawless city, and another story for another day.
Speak to you again tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.