*** Trump Shot (but safe) *** Live Now on all News Channels

Quote:

---

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner)

That was a high-velocity round punching through his skull. It didn't just kill, it obliterated.

---

From what I can tell, the main part of his skull, at least including around his right ear, is not obliterated. The best guess I've heard, and the guess that fits what I see, is that the bullet entered around his left temple and exited somewhere below the main part of his skull, nearer his neckline. This could well have blown some of his brain out the back of his head, through that exit hole near his neck, but it wouldn't, and apparently from the second image didn't, blow apart his skull around his right ear.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner)

It doesn't strain the imagination that he'd have a bad hair day afterwards.

---

Well, yes ... but would seem to me to be unlikely to completely remove any hair covering his ear, given that the ear itself and the skull right below it, remained intact.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner)

Or, maybe, a first responder moved it.

---

That's definitely possible, yes. Indeed, it's almost a certainty that that second image is not a shot of what the first responders on the roof first saw, as your report of the handcuffs substantiates.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner)

Are you suggesting that roof-shooter and roof-corpse are two different people?

---

At this point, I don't know if it's the same person or not. However I do suspect that whomever took that photo and somehow got it into the public record wanted us to think it was the same person, and wanted us to see that ear and identify it as Crooks ear.

I wouldn't wager a wooden nickle on either side of a bet whether or not that Crooks bloody ear image was photo shopped to put (at least the upper portion of) Crooks right ear onto the corpse image of someone else. I would wager a big pile of real pre-1945 silver containing nickels that the bastards who put on these "shows" for us have, would, and could do such image editing, when and if it suits their narrative.

Moreover, it's rather clear to me that, this time, those bastards want us to assign the name "Crooks" to this "lone shooter", and rather obviously did whatever they had to do to insure that the initial, shocking, image we see solidly supports that narrative, knowing that Crooks ear would be a key identifying biomarker.

In other words, that right ear did not end up prominently exposed like that just through the random chaos of that particular head shot. Additional work of moving some combination of hair, head, corpses and/or pixels was applied, (in my cynical view) quite deliberately, to insure that we saw Crooks ear there.

Chris Martenson is live again in 45 minutes. :thumbsup:

Revealing how Corrupt the Secret Service Leadership has Become

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZBKmwqzSQYs

Quote:

---

Posted by ThePythonicCow

So ... pray tell ... why did the set of people all "flinching" at that same moment only occur in:

(1) several of those all along the back row and
(2) the Secret Service sniper team on the roof of the more northern hanger behind Trump,

---

He's using a narrow shot (camera angle I mean) for this conclusion, a conclusion from which his hypothesis proceeds. Do other people duck and flinch? Some do, yes, in other footage around the grounds, and he needs to take this into account. As a researcher, it's incumbent on him to be precise, meticulous, and exhaustive, in both the data he studies and the theories he presents. It's inept scientifically otherwise. Here, the evidence is very lacking. To identify this flinching behaviour as an outlier we need multiple shots from multiple angles. Without this, his assertions are nothing but speculation -- and yes, we are all speculating somewhat, myself included, but I have demonstrable data to back up what I put forward. By contrast he doesn't, at least nothing that makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Posted by ThePythonicCow

(3) while a bullet hit the railing at the end of that row, apparently (from the direction it's puff of smoke forms) having traveled along that back row

---

That puff of metal dust is a strike from the first shot, fired from Crooks on the roof. If you draw a straight line between Crooks on the roof and fork lift truck (where the bullet ends up) it intersects Trump (his ear at least), David Dutch in the bleachers, and that metal railing.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/att...8&d=1722453209

I don't believe any shots went across the back of the bleachers.

Quote:

---

Posted by ThePythonicCow

(4) where all those balcony and sniper flinchers form a straight line into the trees south of the water tower where a sniper could easily hide,

(5) all occurring at the same instance, within a fraction of a second, as the first alleged silent, subsonic gunshot was recorded on the audio?

---

I honestly don't know why these 'specific spectators' flinched so quickly, but they do. But it coincides with the first audible gunshot which came from Crooks, not some phantom silent round because, needless to say, they wouldn't be able to hear a silent round, or at least that's how I see it.

I should probably go through this more carefully and post a reply in the morning, but it's nearly midnight and I want to go to bed! I'll think more on it in the clear light of day -- the whole bloody thing is so muddled! (look at JFK etc, we're still muddled over that sixty years on) :)

A small off-topic observation. The response to serious administrative screw-ups is very different in different cultures.

In China (and I believe also Russia), the head of the Secret Service would have been fired immediately, and maybe quite a few other senior personnel too.

In Ecuador, 10 years ago, there was a corruption problem in the government's Immigration Department. Rather than ordering a laborious and expensive two year investigation, the President just fired everyone — 5,000 employees, guilty or not. Then 5,000 new people were recruited all at once to fill the empty desks. There was chaos for a while, of course, but soon after the problem was all solved and has never returned.

:)

:focus:

I watched a video yesterday on Youtube of the assassination attempt and it showed what looked like a gun flash coming out of a window... its not longer found. Did anyone see that?

Quote:

---

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner)

He's using a narrow shot (camera angle I mean) for this conclusion, a conclusion from which his hypothesis proceeds. Do other people duck and flinch? Some do, yes, in other footage around the grounds,

---

The camera angle was not so narrow that only the back row was visible. Some of the other lower rows of that bleacher, and the people on them, are also visible in these same video frames that show several reactions along the back row. I looked and saw no one flinch, nothing odd fly about, no other "kinetic reactions", anywhere else in the video of that bleacher, at this time.

No doubt others people, in other places or times (including just a few frames later, in this same video), flinched, reacted or otherwise got hit or nearly missed. That doesn't help us decide what happened along that back row, at that time.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner)

That puff of metal dust is a strike from the first shot, fired from Crooks on the roof. If you draw a straight line between Crooks on the roof and fork lift truck (where the bullet ends up) it intersects Trump (his ear at least), David Dutch in the bleachers, and that metal railing.

---

By Cullen's analysis, which I currently find the most compelling, there were two shots, almost simultaneous.

One shot was loud and clear, coming from the direction of the shooter on the roof (Crooks or whomever) and nearly killed Trump, before causing some damage along the far side of the back two rows of the bleacher, and then hitting the fork lift hydraulics.

The other shot was silenced and subsonic and came a few video frames earlier, nearly missing one team of SS Snipers on a roof, then going along the back row, causing all the flinches and reactions.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner)

As a researcher, it's incumbent on him to be precise, meticulous, and exhaustive

---

Cullens is not presenting final conclusions. He is presenting evidence and hypotheses. It is then incumbent on us who would support or criticize his work to consider his evidence and reasoning, perhaps agreeing and supporting or perhaps disagreeing or expressing doubts, or perhaps outright rejecting or finding conflicting evidence.

Disagreeing on his first of many points, and then dismissing him entirely as talking out his arse, before even considering the bulk of the evidence he presented for that first point, apparently (from how it looked to me) because his hypothesis (a silent shot along the back row of that bleacher) violated the narrative you've already accepted, ... that's perhaps less helpful.

I don't know if your working hypothesis is currently the "lone shooter on the roof" hypothesis ... but if it is, I would remind you how well that worked for the "lone shooter in the book repository" hypothesis to explain some fateful events one day in Nov of 1963, in Dallas, Texas.

Quote:

---

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner)

I should probably go through this more carefully and post a reply in the morning, but it's nearly midnight and I want to go to bed! I'll think more on it in the clear light of day -- the whole bloody thing is so muddled! (look at JFK etc, we're still muddled over that sixty years on) :)

---

Indeed - I hope you rested well. There's no doubt in my mind but that this bloody confusion is an intended part of the coverup of whatever crime(s) occurred here that day.

Quote:

---

Posted by mojo

I watched a video yesterday on Youtube of the assassination attempt and it showed what looked like a gun flash coming out of a window... its not longer found. Did anyone see that?

---

There is such video in the latest work of Cullen's, that I posted here a day ago and we've been discussing since then. Unfortunately that's nearly two hours of content, I don't have a timestamp offhand, and I'm not eager right now to scrub through to find timestamps.

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

In Ecuador, 10 years ago, there was a corruption problem in the government's Immigration Department. Rather than ordering a laborious and expensive two year investigation, [B][I]the President just fired everyone — 5,000 employees, guilty or not.

---

Color me seriously jealous :p

There's so much hatred for Trump and so much corruption and just simply insanity (Trump Derangement Syndrome) going on, it is not out of the question that this assassination attempt could of been done by a lone shooter, who had help.

This idea that Crooks was dead before the first shot was fired and had a body double (Yearick), 4 or more shooters involved, completely silent magic bullets flying around in all kinds of crazy directions, well, I'm just not on board with that at all.

We've seen 8 years of massive propaganda and brainwashing polluting the minds of many to absolutely hate Trump and even made to believe him to be Hitler that he will destroy democracy and the world. Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and no one can convince me otherwise. Also, there is no way I'll ever believe that these deranged haters of Trump and far left scumbags have not infiltrated the Secret Service, DHS, and FBI, etc. We've seen this TDS behavior infect every fabric of our society.

TDS is just a layer of this overall problem, mix in some far left marxism/communism and other immoral, lawlessness, and woke ideologies and this behavior problem escalates beyond belief. Many honestly believe killing Trump is justified and the right thing to do. Quite sickening in my opinion. Society is on the brink of collapse because of this ridiculous crap.

My updated theory....

At this point, after much thought and research, I really do think Crooks was the only shooter. I also think he had help from the highest power brokers in the land. The mission that day was to kill Trump, they failed because they didn't have a second shooter in my opinion. The more I learn of what Crooks did leading up to the actual shooting the more I believe he was starting to go off script and probably had his handlers freaking out a bit.

I personally think Crooks handlers thought they had it so well planned out and that placing him so close to Trump that they were confident he wouldn't miss. They've probably been working with him for for a year or two. When this Butler Rally was planned by Trump Crooks handlers probably set the "Operation Save Democracy" mission into action. That's when they told Crooks he was now activated and that he would be the hero that saved democracy and the world. They probably also promised him a position in the CIA division of the James Bond 007 Top Secret super agents once his mission was completed.

I think some of those at the very top of several agencies planned this operation. (FBI, DHS, Secret Service, and possibly others) They also had loyal foot soldiers as the advance team etc., and on the ground that day. (The Shadow Battalion).

I am almost completely convinced Crooks fired the first 8 shots. The first 3 quite controlled, realizing he likely missed, the next 5 were a pissed off burst of shots.

I'm not sure where the 9th shot came from but I think it was local law enforcement that took it and missed. Crooks may of tossed his rifle down and may of been in the process of "giving up".

I think the 10th shot was the shot that killed Crooks. Between that first and last shot, I believe there was a direct order to all snipers to absolutely take the kill shot if they get him in their sights not matter what. There was no way those at the top wanted Crooks to escape or to be captured alive IMO.

Regardless if I'm somewhat right or totally wrong, that's where I'm at with this whole insane event.....

...

... recalling jet fighters and sonic booms... the jet is already out of sight by the time glass panes start shaking... which makes me wonder of how far away from the microphone the bullet is already when the supersonic "crack" arrives at the microphone? Conversely; how much time elapses between the moment the bullet is passing by the microphone and the moment when the supersonic "crack" is heard on the sound system? That's also an equivalent distance.

Reversing the process would give an idea of how much time ahead of the first shot - which can then be searched on videos - the bullet was actually there at the microphone/target finish line.... Someone up to solving the equations? Could also be tested on firing range.

Quote:

---

Posted by Gwin Ru

Conversely; how much time elapses between the moment the bullet is passing by the microphone and the moment when the supersonic "crack" is heard on the sound system?

---

To a first approximation, this time lapse will be the distance between the point (A) where the bullet is the closest it will get to the microphone, and (B) the microphone, divided by the speed of sound.

This is rather similar to the calculations that are being done here, involving the distance between the gun, which makes a "bang" aka "report" sound when some gun powder explodes, and this same the point (A) where the bullet will generate its sonic wave at the closest it will get to the microphone.

For bullets traveling at about Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound), these calculations simply boil down to comparing the distance to the gun, with distance to this same the point (A) where the bullet is the closest it will get to the microphone, because the delta between the bullet's speed and sound's speed is just equal to the speed of sound.

For the bullet's we're dealing with here, we're not far from this simplification. Ordinary AR-15 5.56 (which might have been used for most of the shots heard in that Butler PA rally) might have an average speed along its journey from gun to whatever it hits, at distances of a few hundred feet, of about Mach 2.5. When we're dealing with shots over such distances as 400 feet, and a microphone that is perhaps less than 10 feet from its closest point to the bullet's path. we can at a first approximation ignore the delay for the sonic "crack" of the supersonic impulse getting from where the bullet passes closest to the microphone to the microphone.

This is not what you notice when a supersonic jet fighter passes at a further distance, and when you're comparing the time between when you see the fighter to when you hear it's boom. In that case you're comparing the speed of light, to get the visual image to your eyes, with the speed of sound, to get the sonic boom to your ears. The speed of light is approx one million times the speed of sound in air near the earth's surface.

So instead of being able to ignore the delay for the sonic boom to get from the bullet's nearest travel point to the microphone, one is in the opposite position of that delay being the only significant factor when viewing supersonic airplanes.

Quote:

---

Posted by SilentFeathers

At this point, after much thought and research, I really do think Crooks was the only shooter.

---

I might (for the moment ... my view has changed multiple times) disagree with your current view.

However before I disagree, let me appreciate the clarity with which you stated your view. Thank-you.

I do disagree with your view that Crooks was the only shooter.

Now that I have listened several times to what John Cullens presented in a Rumble video I linked above about a day ago, I find his evidence for five active shooters quite compelling, and I find that the complexity of this operation is such that there is no way the one's pulling this off would have "bet the farm" on a single shooter.

Just as with the 1963 JFK assassination, several shooters were brought in to make dang sure the assassination succeeded. Some of these shooters were assigned a primary mission of taking out the Secret Service snipers, so that others of these shooters would have more time on target, and a reduced risk of being killed themselves. One of these shooters was brought in to be the patsy, who would die trying to kill Trump, and allow the other snipers to escape, if all went well, safely and unnoticed.

It was not until Cullens refined his analysis sufficiently to identify subsonic rounds fired from silenced rifles, which are nearly "silent" compared to a typical supersonic 5.56 round fired from a typical (not silenced) AR-15, none of us studying this had any substantial evidence of all these shooters.

The Trump Derangement Syndrome you mention has still been useful in this operation ... many "Left" leaning people, who dominate in much of the main stream media and current federal agency leadership, will tend to support and appreciate such an assassination effort, rather than instinctively being willing to put their life on the line to stop and expose any such assassination efforts.

It's a lot easier to run a revolutionary operation when half the population tends to agree with that effort.

Quote:

---

Posted by mojo

I watched a video yesterday on Youtube of the assassination attempt and it showed what looked like a gun flash coming out of a window... its not longer found. Did anyone see that?

---

It's at 55:56 and some before and after, link below


other comments I posted about this video

My comment from middle of Cullen's latest (link from Norman)
https://rumble.com/v592bhg-multiple-...-tpc-1538.html

When are the SS sniper team members going to be interviewed officially? If they were taking shots, and subsonic shots, shouldn't we be hearing from them?

At 53:20, Cullen says that object flying by on video was the shot that took out Crooks - is that even possible for a cell phone camera to capture?

Quote:

---

Posted by ThePythonicCow

Quote:

---

Posted by SilentFeathers

At this point, after much thought and research, I really do think Crooks was the only shooter.

---

I might (for the moment ... my view has changed multiple times) disagree with your current view.

However before I disagree, let me appreciate the clarity with which you stated your view. Thank-you.

I do disagree with your view that Crooks was the only shooter.

Now that I have listened several times to what John Cullens presented in a Rumble video I linked above about a day ago, I find his evidence for five active shooters quite compelling, and I find that the complexity of this operation is such that there is no way the one's pulling this off would have "bet the farm" on a single shooter.

Just as with the 1963 JFK assassination, several shooters were brought in to make dang sure the assassination succeeded. Some of these shooters were assigned a primary mission of taking out the Secret Service snipers, so that others of these shooters would have more time on target, and a reduced risk of being killed themselves. One of these shooters was brought in to be the patsy, who would die trying to kill Trump, and allow the other snipers to escape, if all went well, safely and unnoticed.

It was not until Cullens refined his analysis sufficiently to identify subsonic rounds fired from silenced rifles, which are nearly "silent" compared to a typical supersonic 5.56 round fired from a typical (not silenced) AR-15, none of us studying this had any substantial evidence of all these shooters.

The Trump Derangement Syndrome you mention has still been useful in this operation ... many "Left" leaning people, who dominate in much of the main stream media and current federal agency leadership, will tend to support and appreciate such an assassination effort, rather than instinctively being willing to put their life on the line to stop and expose any such assassination efforts.

It's a lot easier to run a revolutionary operation when half the population tends to agree with that effort.

---

You and I are far apart as to how we see this may of played out, which is ok as all things should be considered.

But consider this as to how these deranged far left lunatics and Trump hating psychopaths operate. For example; 2 ridiculous impeachments, Jan 6th, all these sloppy lawsuits, 8 years of propaganda demonizing Trump, just to name a few.

There is a repeating pattern here. There seems to be no extremely high degree of complexity or total success in any of the attacks thrown at Trump. Every attack plan towards Trump seems to never being completely thought through and somewhat designed with several flaws, and always ending up in failure of it's main objective.

A sloppy single shooter assassination attempt falls right in to this pattern IMO.

These psychopaths doing all these things to Trump and the country seem to be so full of hatred and are so emotionally and mentally deranged, that their capability of critical thinking in anyway is almost nonexistent. (or extremely impaired).

https://x.com/drawandstrike/status/1818988870371082325

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

@VigilantFox
Yesterday, acting Secret Service Director Rowe testified how DIFFICULT it must have been for counter-snipers to spot Crooks.

Today, an explosive video reveals a person running on the roof IN PLAIN SIGHT minutes before Crooks opened fire.

“Shooter, no elbows, you barely make out the crown of his head,” Rowe said.

This newly-surfaced video shows someone moving STRAIGHT UP, making it hard to understand why snipers didn't spot him.

Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit
@drawandstrike
Gee, what horrible, terrible, rotten, no-good, bad luck that was for SS Director Rowe to go **on the record** saying that just ONE DAY before the video surfaced showing Crooks - or someone - running/walking around on that roof while standing up.

Just minutes before the shots were fired.

...

... glad to see that Kevin Barrett is in close agreement with me:

"Sifting and Winnowing": Evidence in the False Flag Trump Shooting

Kevin Barrett • July 25, 2024

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/..._1024x768.jpeg

In 2006 I was forced out of the University of Wisconsin for researching 9/11 and drawing politically-incorrect conclusions.* Ironically, the University’s unofficial motto is “fearless sifting and winnowing.” That expression is drawn from a famous plaque on Bascom Hill:

“Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

Let’s break down that motto.

“Fearless” means overcoming fear of finding truths that you aren’t going to like, and that may even damage your career and reputation. It’s always better to set partisan emotions aside and dispassionately seek the truth, then let that truth form the basis of your emotional reaction, rather than let your emotional reaction dictate what you think is the truth. As scripture says, always “ascertain the truth.”

“Sifting and winnowing” implies looking through all the evidence and context in search of the most relevant items, discarding the ones that turn out to be weak, and highlighting what’s important. It’s an archaic “wheat from the chaff” metaphor from an age in which most people were familiar with agricultural work. Today, an honest and dispassionate search for truth may be as obsolete as sifting and winnowing grain by hand. But since I’m an epistemological Luddite, I’m still doing it that way. Your paid subscriptions to this Substack make that possible.

The July 13th “Trump shooting” is obviously the kind of event that requires fearless sifting and winnowing. The official story is brilliantly summarized by the inimitable James “9/11 in 5 minutes” Corbett:

On July 13, 2024, former US President Donald Trump was giving a speech at a (s)election campaign rally near Butler, Pennsylvania, when a 20-year-old who was kicked out of his high school rifle club for being a dangerously bad shot climbed up on the completely unsecured roof of a building being used as a police staging area within 150 metres of the former president. Before shooting, that you man spent minutes fumbling around on the roof while concerned onlookers desperately tried to warn law enforcement officials of a man with a gun. The counter-snipers at the rally, perched on a sloped roof behind the president, scoped out the man (who had already been spotted by police and even confronted by one police officer) on the roof (a roof that couldn’t be secured because it was sloped) and waited until he successfully fired on Trump before they fired back at him. The would-be assassin died, as did a 50-year-old fire chief in the crowd. Trump, only grazed in the ear, boldly climbed to his feet just in time for a picture-perfect publicity stunt. Then he shouted “Fight! Fight! Fight!” before being led off stage by his valiant Secret Service detail.

That’s the official story of the attempted Trump assassination, and if you question any part of it then . . . congratulations. You’re a conspiracy realist whose head is screwed on straight and who knows even a little bit about actual history.

Since the official story obviously lies somewhere between wildly improbable and a complete joke, we need to start fearlessly sifting and winnowing, beginning by asking the million dollar question: cui bono? Who gains? Since we know the American oligarchy includes both pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions, the obvious possibilities are (1) a botched assassination attempt by the anti-Trump faction, or (2) a fake assassination attempt by the pro-Trump faction. As my regular readers know, I think the preponderance of evidence favors alternative #2.

But that doesn’t mean that all of the evidence for that hypothesis is what it seems. Two items of evidence I had cited in previous articles have turned out to be weak.

First, and most importantly, the claim by an anonymous “Secret Service ballistics expert” reported by the AP—that an actual 5.56 round would have likely ripped Trump’s ear off and caused a huge concussion—has turned out to be false or at least exaggerated. How exaggerated? Can gun expert readers help me clear this up? The AP expert suggested that even a smaller, less powerful handgun bullet that nicked an ear would likely cause a serious concussion, due to its shockwave, and that a much higher-energy assault rifle bullet like the 5.556 one that supposedly hit Trump’s ear would presumably cause an even worse one. Yet there is no evidence that Trump suffered a concussion.

I wonder if my gun-savvy expert readers can convince me that the “Secret Service ballistics expert” was totally wrong, and that bullets can graze a person’s head without their shockwave doing any damage whatsoever. Would you, dear reader, volunteer to have a handgun bullet whiz less than an inch by the side of your head, and expect to suffer no concussion? If so, would you also volunteer for the same experiment with an 5.56 round from an AR-15 at 400 feet? (Assuming, of course, that you could be assured that the bullet would pass within an inch of your skull, but not hit it.) These are real, honest questions. I don’t know the answer, nor am I assuming anything. The bullet that once whizzed by my head didn’t come close enough to settle the issue from personal experience.**

Another seemingly damning but deceptive item of evidence is the video that appears to show a Secret Service sniper firing the first three shots, the second of which allegedly struck Trump’s ear. I have been convinced by several astute commenters that the Secret Service sniper is probably reacting to shots, not taking them. If I’m wrong, drop a comment explaining why.

And speaking of astute comments, here is one that offers a seemingly plausible scenario explaining what really happened in Butler. It hinges on an aspect of the event that I haven’t yet written about: the evidence for a second shooter on the water tower. Is this scenario plausible? Why or why not? If you can find convincing evidence for or against it, please drop the links in the comments section.***

Another issue I didn’t address in previous articles is Trump’s apparent lie that “my hand was covered with blood.” Is this relevant? Why or why not?

And how about the Secret Service “dog that didn’t bark”? Letting a bumbling, autistic 20 year old amateur scope out the site with a drone, bring a gun and a ladder, and spend at least a few minutes getting into firing position in full view of witnesses who fruitlessly kept pointing and screaming at the Secret Service “there’s a guy with a gun on that roof” seems a tad odd. Even odder is the Secret Service’s willingness to let Trump get his fist-pump photo op, which exposed the former president to more potential shots. So who’s crazy: people who explain it away as incompetence, or those who doubt that Trump or any other Secret Service protectee would still be alive if the world’s premier protective detail were really the Keystone Cops?

And then there is the issue of the “magic bullet” allegedly photographed by Doug Mills. Were the odds against Mills getting this iconic photo, worth millions in publicity and even more as “proof” of the official story, really one in a million? If not, what were the actual approximate odds? And does the bullet path in the photo fail to line up with Trump’s ear?

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/...88_640x299.png

There are undoubtedly more questions about the spectacular and spectacularly dubious 7/13 “magic ear shot” event that deserve to be sifted and winnowed. What, in your opinion, are the most important ones?

I’ll conclude with the words of Barrie Zwicker, a mainstream Canadian journalist who was marginalized after 9/11 due to his excellent work exposing the absurdity of that official story. I sought Barrie’s opinion thanks to another of my many astute commenters. Barrie replied to my email:

“Like Kevin, it took my skeptically-inclined mind really just minutes to spot the signs of a false flag op in the alleged assassination attempt on Trump. Besides multiple one-in-a-million odds regarding Trump being “nicked in the ear” by a bullet from an AR15, how about the timing? Much too convenient. Major red flag there. Alleged shooter promptly dispatched. So can’t testify, no kidding. The raised fist. The American flag as backdrop, Iwo Jima style. “God saved me,” declares one of the most God-forsaken sinners history has ever produced. Trump even sounded scripted, and we know he hates teleprompters. He hates anyone telling him to do anything. But he grudgingly goes along with the plotters and performed his role in the theatrical details. He is a performer, after all. A bad actor, in every way. Then there’s the key and central question: cui bono–who benefits? And the obvious answer: Trump and his deceitful far right wing movement are the beneficiaries. It was a psyop alright. Although, as Kevin points out, so many people have lost their minds already that also constitutes piling-on. I hold the faint hope that this particular deception will be exposed, and fainter still that if it is, that it will be in time to expose the plotters. My hopes are up against the record: false flag ops always go investigation-free.”

Is Barrie’s distaste for Trump misleading him? Or is it, in this instance, serving him well—like his distaste for Bush and Cheney helped him quickly get 9/11 mostly right? Let me know what you think.


________________________________________________________________________


* Prior to being blacklisted for my 9/11 scholarship I was never turned down for any of the many temporary teaching positions I had applied for at UW-Madison. My late friend and “Islam and literary studies” mentor Muhammad Umar Memon was a member of the first UW-Madison hiring committee that ever turned me down. That position was the spring 2007 “Islam: Religion and Culture” class. Dr. Memon privately said he and other members of the hiring committee were told by the university administration that I must not be hired due to my 9/11 notoriety. Meanwhile another insider, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Humanities Dean Howard Ross, became a whistleblower by publicly stating that I had already been selected for a heavily-federally-funded tenure-track Islam and Humanities position at the University of Wisconsin Whitewater when a member of the hiring committee with administration connections forced the committee to withdraw the prepared offer “because Barrett has screwy views on 9/11.” Ross alerted me to the situation with an email headed: “You were discriminated against.” (Unfortunately, discrimination on the basis of political views is legal in Wisconsin.) Rather than hire me, the university returned the money to the feds and closed the position. It was re-opened a few years after that, and a less-controversial friend of mine ended up getting the job.

** In February 2021 I was cross country skiing in the forest between Long Lake and the Wisconsin River when I felt the buzzing shockwave of a bullet at the exact instant a thick tree branch five feet from my head splintered with a tremendous bang, followed by a different, thunderously loud bang of a gunshot from off in the distance. Hoping it was a mistake by some lunatic hunting out of season, I yelled several times at the top of my lungs: “Don’t shoot!” Then I skied home and called the police. They spent several hours doing an investigation that consisted of knocking on neighbors’ doors and chatting. Late that night they returned to my house saying that they had identified the likely shooter as one of my neighbors. They said the shooting was a reckless mistake, that they had put the fear of God into the guy, and that he almost certainly wouldn’t do it again, but that if I wanted to press charges they could return the next day to search for the bullet and build a case. Since I knew the likely identity of the shooter—an ex-military neighbor with PTSD who occasionally annoyed other neighbors by firing heavy weapons in his yard—and since I had heard from my wife and son who knew him and his family that he was a good guy and even a supporter of my “conspiracy theories”—I declined to press charges. Later I befriended K-, who turned out to be an alright guy who will, I trust, have learned enough from the experience to stop taking careless potshots at shadows in the woods.

*** Audio forensics evidence ought to shed light on the issue of how many shots came from where and when.

• Senator Cruz POINTS OUT major hole in Trump assassin story:

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v56xhz7/?pub=ir01b

Now that I have watched the rest of Cullen and Clay Martin
https://rumble.com/v592bhg-multiple-...-tpc-1538.html

He speaks at 1:41 of Erik Prince's tweet which stated "the only positive action was an apparent 488 yard shot by one secret service sniper which dispatched the assassin"

at 1:43 he shows this other SS sniper location image looking down the barrel aiming towards the (dead) perp on the roof (sometime after the events)
Cullen looks in google earth to find a location of that length, and says only location that matches Prince's statement is the water tower which he states is exactly 488 yards from the SS sniper position shown in the photo. (at 1:45)

Cullen says south tower guys took out kid on roof, sniper from this location to out someone on water tower (recall the video where the witness claimed they shot someone on the water tower), and says that was the last loud shot you hear (only crack, no thump, 300 yards down range)

Cullen says there a 3 different eyewitnesses saying the sniper took out the shooter on the water tower.

Regardless of what really happened, where was/is the investigation at the site? Body Shooter autopsy? Ballistics? Spent cartridges? Someone running from the trees? A dead body below or on the water tower? Nothing!

Where are the whistleblowers who may know more about all that went down?

From recent comments at link:

Quote:

---

FlyfishADK
42 minutes ago
1 question here. You state that there are multiple silence shots fired after the audible shots stop as Trump is being taken off stage. Where were those shots hitting? I see no indications of additional injuries or impacts being made. How do you account for this? Thank you

oldbloodhound
1 hour ago
Eyewitness at AGR interview....no window shooter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hjm...amountTactical

JohnDrakeMI6
15 hours ago
https://old.bitchute.com/video/jRYg78yrl3P9/ I am ex-Secret Service and also know about a 2nd or 3rd shooter as well. Contact me if you need an interview. So far EVERYBODY is lying about the 7-13-incident. john.a.carman@gmail.com

ccorskipc
19 hours ago
Another piece of evidence I haven't heard you talk about is it seems that kid filming KNEW something dangerous was happenning coming from that building because he was hiding behind that tree, waning people to make themselves small BEFORE the un-suppressed shots were even fired. Lets hear from that guy, we should know who's video it was. What did he see and hear?

ggoodwinj3
22 hours ago
Who were the snipers on the north & south roofs? SS or Local LEO?

If they were taking fire - it would seem to be a pretty tough secret to keep - especially if they were LEO.


Joshuagerstel
1 day ago
There is an old barn that is exactly 488 YDS from the north snipers that if you do a street view of the building 523 Evans City Rd Meridian, Pennsylvania. Would be a perfect sniper nest with line of site to the counter snipers. The barn is wide open with multiple vantage points. With a silenced weapon, no one would ever know someone was there.

Zzyzx
1 day ago
message to John, be careful going to congress, there are few patriots left there. the FBI and SS are all in on the shooting, as evidenced by both top leaders sitting in congressional hearings this week lying thru their teeth. they know who did it. why was FBI not searching that whole area the very next day?? they know, they were in on it. be so very careful and trust no one. they have hidden evidence and bodies.

Traceyscott1969
1 day ago
The Body Cam Pics from who ever was 1st on that ROOF needs to shown ASAP, as Who placed the casings on the ROOF as scatter pattern is wrong!!!
Also through all the Footage has anyone managed to capture the 1st Group of People that went to the Roof ???
Sorry if asking Stupid questions but with this Evidence it needs to found from the Public images ASAP

RoosterRig
1 day ago
So issues which make this video and the theories a bit suspect:
1) If the Dave Stewart video is actually showing the bullet that takes out "patsy" (53:16) then that bullet was suppressed and fired from the trees. So not USSS? The cameraman is under the first tree looking towards the water tower. So where was the bullet fired from?
2) @ 1:20:45 I think that camera is in the second window, not the third, which is why it isn't lining up. If that is from the third window then the theory doesn't make sense.
3) @ 1:43:25 that highlighted box stated as the "patsy" location is just plain wrong. The body is where the LEO are standing. Bad info.
4) @ 1:48:00 that tree was seen at the beginning of the Dave Stewart ("this guys Rage-in!") video and it is not very large and has people under it. Nope, don't think it could be a sniper in that one.

---

(sorry if this excerpt previously posted)

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1818670352681353411

Charlie Kirk

@charliekirk11
Local officials are telling Fox News that the USSS told a local sniper team to set up on the "ground level looking into the crowd" as opposed to on top of the warehouse roof where the assassin would ultimately fire his shots at President Trump. They also said that had USSS told them to position on the roof, they would have. It wasn't the slope, it wasn't the heat, they were told where to go. Why would a sniper team be on the ground level?

What on earth is going on here!?

...

... good Ole Dammegard... what a feast for mind sustenance:

Ole Dammegard has mind-blowing information on Trump assassination. 1:54:40

michaelj5326

Streamed on: Jul 30, 9:00 pm EDT

Ole Dammegard website https://lightonconspiracies.com

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v56r7ok