TSOT100: Conclusive Mathematical Analysis for "Tall Joe" Appearing 7/24/24

The Scales of Truth

[Substackers - please duplicate this - visuals will work better, as will textual explanation]
[LISTENERS - MANY details and explanation in Episode Notes]
Why should you care? First, because calling the big psy ops bluffs of psycho liars is its own reward. And the more you admit these lies to yourself, the closer you are to just saying things plainly also to others who desperately need to hear it.
How much longer are we going to be okay with a government and a setup that allows government, via whatever rationale, to LIE about whether the person standing before us is actually the person we elected???!!!!!
It's not "CUTE."
It's not "cool."
If you do not have the time or the ability for the President to appear at a given moment, that's its own rationale for him or her not to appear!
Everything else is world-class criminality when and if your premise is that you are a law-abiding, freedom-loving country. If we cannot trust you, for ANY reason, to either don't have the President appear, or to have him appear when he or she is available, then we cannot trust you.
These lies can NOT stand. Because lies build on lies. It may be "cute" or "cool" when an agent is dressed up as someone he or she is not. But when these tactics are used to impersonate PRESIDENTS it can ONLY honestly be termed CRIMINAL.
===================================================
0:00 Background (what major candidate, let alone a sitting President, does not tell his campaign or his staff Cough-BULLSHIT-Cough. And then doesn't show up on video for at least two days? HE DID NOT AGREE AT FIRST. PERIOD (and that's giving benefit of the doubt as to whether he ever has))
- - - - 4:23 Where you can find video (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/did-joe-biden-taller-covid-152216840.html)
- - - - 5:39 Audio from video
6:39 An explanation of the log and process
- - - - 7:16 How do we compare without a measuring stick?
- - - - 8:04 A specific ratio, based on your measurements, does not change (i.e. How many of your "heads" tall are you... how many of your shoulder widths tall are you). Neither measurement changes, and so the ratio will not change.
- - - - - - - Calculated four different ratio types
- - - - Five screenshots of Tall, 7/24/24 Biden
- - - - Eight photos pulled from internet (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ) for normal Joe Biden.
- - - - - - - - Once each ratio was calculated, threw out lowest and highest for each, leaving six apiece.
- - - - 11:58 Ratios used, in detail (Height is numerator in each calculation. 1. Height versus width of suit seam. 2. Height versus regular shoulder width, past seam 3. Height versus head length 4. Head versus partial head length (bottom of nose to top of head)) (SPOILER: Last one does not work well). Measure in pixels
- - - - 14:26 How to measure height aspect: To take out having to guess where heel is, and not making mistake of an angle that would show a pointed foot, measured from TOP of shoe to top of head. This takes away variability of if lifts are being worn, and just makes point in picture easier to find.
17:32 Consistency of five photos of suspicious Joe:
Neither measurement is easy to accurately measure like we could with a tape measure. - - - - - But the point for this episode is whether there is a SPREAD between the one suspicious Joe set versus all the others.
- - - But for information, the ratio spreads (highest ratio versus lowest ratio) for the four measurements are 104.6%, 103.4%, 104.6%, and (wonky ratio) 107.2%, respectively.
- - - - - Why is 104.6, 103.4, and 104.6, and 107.2 important? Because though we know this IS the same person (since its from the same video), this sets a standard for our accuracy / precision. Because it is the same person, these should vary less than the eight photos of "normal Joe" from various settings (cut down to six for each ratio).
- - - - - Answer; They do vary less - for those taken from a variety of sources, the ranges are higher in all cases (106.19%, 105.74%, 106.88%, 108.22% respectively)
20:18 Comparing the average height ratio of "tall Joe" versus the average height ratio of "normal Joe".
Dramatic result. As a percentage of normal Joe, tall Joe calculates out at nearly 10% taller
(109.64%, 109.54%, 114.83% (speculation - because tall Joe is NOT Joe Biden, part of this third ratio being so dramatic is probably just because tall Joe has a smaller head, so the ratio is even more dramatic), . . . and 127.43% (clearly this last one is no good - nice try, but clearly not helpful)
- - - - 23:46 How do these ratios translate to suspicious joe's height? Assuming Joe's regular height is 6 feet, then, respectively, 6'6.75", 6'6.5", 6'10 (and ignore the fourth one - its wonky)
27:08 Comparing the average of suspicious Joe to the HIGHEST non-suspicious. This gives extra benefit of doubt to "regular Joe's" height - we didn't take the average for regular Joe, we are instead using only the highest value for each ratio.
With that we STILL get 107.11%
(Average of tall Joe is 7.11% taller than the HIGHEST (tallest) regular Joe).
2nd and 3rd ratios: 107.03%, 110.6%
Note that this span - between the TALLEST regular Joe and the SHORTEST tall Joe, is a LARGER RANGE than that which contained ALL SIX of the regular Joe heights.
31:06 Comparing instead the "shortest" value for tall Joe Biden to the "tallest" value for regular Joe Biden.
Even with this incredible caution - as though all but the shortest value for tall Joe Biden was "too tall" and all but the tallest value for regular Joe Biden was "too short". . .
STILL the %: 105.06%, 105.75%, 108.62%, 117.45% (throw away that one).
That is, the "shortest" tall Biden indicates as over 5% taller than the tallest regular Joe Biden. (On 72" base height, that indicates at least 3.6" taller)
These gaps are all inline, in absolute range, of how big the span was for all six normal heights.
- - - - 38:03 Implied height from last measure: 6'3.45"; 6'3.922", 6'5'.885".
40:48 Closing
====================================================
Remember, by definition if this is the same person, then the five instances from 7/24/25 Rose Garden appearance should blend in with all the rest. Even if somehow these five were sitting near the very top of the results of the full 13 photos, they should at least more or less indicate the same ratio.
Instead, that they're not only the tallest, but EASILY the tallest, and are as far or further removed from the other results as the other results are all separated from each other, is conclusive. Again, the question is NOT "is this guy not too much taller". The point is that Joe hasn't grown (that part Yahoo got right), so if we have evidence of someone 4 to 7 inches taller. . . IT. CANNOT. BE. JOE.
So the question is, do we have that evidence? We do.
And we do not just during any old moment in a four-year term, but a moment where the absence of the actual President implies the possibilities of a literal COUP.
Fuck the Deception Complex, and fuck the politicians taking it hostage and / or taking advantage of it. If the guy needs to go out due to an inability to lead don't use the excuse of not wanting to admit it to LIE to us on how you got there!!
===================================
Thanks for listening! Please feel free to email me at [e-mail] with requests for appearances, thoughts, feedback, questions, observations, or show ideas! Please like my episodes and follow my show if that is what feels right to you!