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

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
This video is done by an arial imagery specialist.

A very convincing analysis eliminating the possibility of a second shooter being on the water tower....

Trump Assassination Attempt Analysis - The Water Tower Shooter

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MEbYs1CwQC8

He did a very good job on that, and I'm certainly not arguing that there was a shooter on the water tower. But he made a mistake in his math.

Here's the diagram he used:



He took the height of the large LCD screen as 25 ft. He arrived at that figure to use because he knew that the screen was 15.30 feet high, and that was 9.07 feet from the ground. His diagram for that (at 11:36 in the video) is here:



But that height actually totals 24.37 feet — and he rounded it up to 25 feet, "to be a little conservative".

But that changes everything. "To be a little conservative", he should have rounded it down, not up.

That lower estimated height for the screen places Trump's head just within the line of sight of a water tower shooter.

Again, I'm NOT arguing that there had to be a shooter up there. Just that his logic had a flaw.

I noticed that too but didn't do the math myself. I figured he was within the margin of error.

I also think if there was a second shooter or anyone else on that tower more people would of easily seen them and we've have a bunch more photos clearly showing someone up there. The tower wasn't all that far away.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
This video is done by an arial imagery specialist.

A very convincing analysis eliminating the possibility of a second shooter being on the water tower....

Trump Assassination Attempt Analysis - The Water Tower Shooter

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MEbYs1CwQC8

Bobby Quinn, in the above video, concludes that there was a man sized person on the water tower, but that this person "could not get a shot off" because the stage left LED sign (the one Trump was looking at) was in the way, between the top of the water tower and Trump as he stood at the podium.

Quinn does not address three possible issues that come to my mind.

(1) Was the water tower on higher elevation land than Trump's podium?

As one can see from Quinn's side view drawing of the angles, heights and distances involved, the top of the tower only needed to be a few feet higher to enable the person on top of the tower to see Trump's head when he was at the podium.

Here's a screen shot of Quinn's side view drawing:


A couple of people in the Youtube comments responding to this video ask about the relative elevation of Trump's podium and the water tower, observing, as I am, that putting the water tower on higher ground would have allowed the shooter on the water tower to hit Trump's head.

The replies in these Youtube comments are inconclusive in my view. Quinn assumes the ground is quite flat in this area, and reports that the drone operator he worked with after the shooting also found the ground to be quite flat. On the other hand, one of the Youtube commentators claimed to have "just checked a topographical map of the area and it shows a variation of about 100' in that area."

(2) Could a shooter on the water tower have made the shot past the snipers on the northern stage left hanger roof, then along the top row of the southern, stage right, bleacher?

This would have been the shot that John Cullen finds strong evidence for.

Quinn doesn't consider such a shot. Quinn only considers what shots could have been made at Trump. But from my current understanding of all the angles, distances, heights and possible obstructions involved, such a shot as Cullen found looks totally possible to me ... nothing in the way at all.

(3) Could a shooter on the water tower have taken out the shooter Crooks on the AGR roof?

Yes - Quinn shows that the person on the water tower had a clear shot at Crooks on the roof.

Hence I conclude that the person on the roof was not a Secret Service sniper doing his job. Crooks would have died earlier, and the Secret Service sniper on the southern, stage right, hanger roof would not have had to make a difficult shot with limited visibility, to take out Crooks.

Even if the person on the water tower was just an observer supporting Trump's security, that observer would have had such a clear view of Crooks moving into position that only _extreme_ incompetence or deliberate dereliction of duty could explain Trump's close security not being warned to get Trump off stage sooner.

===

P.S. -- Bill beat me to further considerations of whether the shooter on the tower could have shot Trump:

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
He took the height of the large LCD screen as 25 ft. He arrived at that figure to use because he knew that the screen was 15.30 feet high, and that was 9.07 feet from the ground. His diagram for that (at 11:36 in the video) is here:



But that height actually totals 24.37 feet — and he rounded it up to 25 feet, "to be a little conservative".

But that changes everything. "To be a little conservative", he should have rounded it down, not up.

That lower estimated height for the screen places Trump's head just within the line of sight of a water tower shooter.

Again, I'm NOT arguing that there had to be a shooter up there. Just that his logic had a flaw.

I agree with all of Bill's observations.

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1816934002994843883

Donald Trump plans to return to Butler PA and finish his speech and rally.

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) July 26, 2024

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by Vangelo (here)

Posted by Vangelo (here)
[...]

I am not sure I am following this... Are you saying that very competent people (professionals) purposefully (i.e. 'by design') created an environment/situation...

[...]

I was hoping for a simple yes or no. I guess you don't want to clarify what you meant by:

... i.e. the incompetence was by design and designed by very competent professionals.

hmmm...

I can answer by yes only to that first portion of the question.

[Vangelo]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Vangelo (here)

Posted by Vangelo (here)
[...]

I am not sure I am following this... Are you saying that very competent people (professionals) purposefully (i.e. 'by design') created an environment/situation...

[...]

I was hoping for a simple yes or no. I guess you don't want to clarify what you meant by:

... i.e. the incompetence was by design and designed by very competent professionals.

hmmm...

I can answer by yes only to that first portion of the question.

Obfuscation, I wonder why...
What is Kim's take on all this?
On second thought, don't bother replying. I certainly won't.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
A couple of people in the Youtube comments responding to this video ask about the relative elevation of Trump's podium and the water tower, observing, as I am, that putting the water tower on higher ground would have allowed the shooter on the water tower to hit Trump's head.

By the way, we have lots of water towers like that in the area where I live, in North Texas.

So far as I've noticed, they always put such towers on high ground. Even if the local land is nearly flat, they find the pretty much highest rise they can. Every foot of ground elevation saves them one foot of tower height, to get the pressure they need to provide adequate pressure to all the surrounding homes and buildings, without active pumps.

Also, in a separate discussion on some other video I was watching a day or two ago, the commentators were trying to figure out how people on the ground could have seen Crooks sliding on his belly on a nearly flat roof "above" them. The commentators figured out, after a bit more study, that the ground on that side (the west side, as I recall) of the building Crooks was rose up, higher than the ground that building sat on, giving people standing west of the building a better view of what lay close down on that roof.

So ... that ground is not as flat as Bonneville Salt Flats or Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia.

[Delight]

This is going on now:
Four Dimensional Investigation of the Biggest Limited Hangout Ever with John Cullen & Lee Stranahan

Lee Stranahan is someone people may not know but he is a LONG time broadcaster and researcher.

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
A couple of people in the Youtube comments responding to this video ask about the relative elevation of Trump's podium and the water tower, observing, as I am, that putting the water tower on higher ground would have allowed the shooter on the water tower to hit Trump's head.

By the way, we have lots of water towers like that in the area where I live, in North Texas.

So far as I've noticed, they always put such towers on high ground. Even if the local land is nearly flat, they find the pretty much highest rise they can. Every foot of ground elevation saves them one foot of tower height, to get the pressure they need to provide adequate pressure to all the surrounding homes and buildings, without active pumps.

Also, in a separate discussion on some other video I was watching a day or two ago, the commentators were trying to figure out how people on the ground could have seen Crooks sliding on his belly on a nearly flat roof "above" them. The commentators figured out, after a bit more study, that the ground on that side (the west side, as I recall) of the building Crooks was rose up, higher than the ground that building sat on, giving people standing west of the building a better view of what lay close down on that roof.

So ... that ground is not as flat as Bonneville Salt Flats or Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia.

I appreciate your input and others chiming in on his video. The missing details you all mentioned makes sense.

He did use a drone to take measurements but I'm not sure if his drone measured elevations for everything there.

I do think this guy has the capability to do some really good work mapping bullet paths, angles etc., he may be someone Chris Martenson may want to speak with.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
I can answer by yes only to that first portion of the question.

Now you sound like Kimberly Cheatle at the Congress hearing.

[Bill Ryan]

Chris Martenson's livestream update for today has just started.

FBI Top man Tumbles

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4KpmRyC6wBw

[SilentFeathers]

An interesting chat between these two guys....DARK JOURNALIST INTERVIEWS DR. JOSEPH FARRELL

Season of Assassination Dark Journalist & Dr. Joseph Farrell

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=swQOkJqYrZY

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
he [John Cullen] may be someone Chris Martenson may want to speak with.

Cullen publicly invited Chris Martenson to join with him in a public discussion of this, after about the first day of this analysis.

Martenson, and Mike Adams, have ignored Cullen and his work.

I sent to Martenson's Peak Prosperity site, and posted on his Youtube channel, recommendations to check out Cullen's work showing one or more additional shooters, using visual analysis.

Martenson has essentially ignored my comments, and that of a few others I've noticed making similar comments. (But I'm nobody Martenson knows, so given that he has a half million Youtube subscribers, I'd be flabbergasted if he did notice me ).

I would guess that John Cullen is about right, when he speculates (on his pay-to-view Patreon channel) that Chris Martenson's role is to help cover up the critical revealing evidence and distract with a fog of disinformation that guides us conspiracy theorists down a path that discredits or distracts us. I've viewed Chris Martenson on and off for many years -- I'm not surprised that we're only getting part of the story from him, from a slant that is well thought out, but misses key perspectives.

===

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
An interesting chat between these two guys....DARK JOURNALIST INTERVIEWS DR. JOSEPH FARRELL

Season of Assassination Dark Journalist & Dr. Joseph Farrell

P.S. -- Now that I've listened to the above posted Dark Journalist and Joseph Farrell video, let me add Farrell to the one's I'll be listening to more on this topic (unlike Chris Martenson).

[jaybee]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1816934002994843883

Donald Trump plans to return to Butler PA and finish his speech and rally.

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) July 26, 2024

Trump is so brave - his enemies must be hopping mad - vowing to get him one way or another.... but still he goes on .... not backing down.... .....it's astonishing

I hope that his personal security is upped as high as it possibly can be in the lead up to the return to Butler - although I would think that whoever controls the Butler Farm bookings will be under severe pressure you stop it happening...?

If the repeat rally gets the go ahead.... people attending - in fact people attending any Trump event should use their phones to good effect and film anything and everything they can that might help deter assassination attempts...ie randomly film crowds and security personnel, police etc + all areas within the vicinity (and beyond) - do their own close surveillance of the immediate and surrounding area.... - - - not just film Trump himself -

And prayer groups and individuals need to focus on protecting Trump even more than they have been...

[Bruce G Charlton]

This has been such a rapid-posting thread I have probably missed someone making exactly this point, but anyway...

If the picture from the New York Times photographer of the bullet going past DT's head is genuine (and maybe it is not), and it was indueed captured during an 8000 images per second burst, then this is strong evidence that the photographer, hence the NYT, were expecting the assassination attempt at a very specific time, and the organizers were attempting to get a photographic image of DT's head exploding.

***

From Ann Barnhardt:

Professional photographer sends: NYT photographer was set up to shoot super-high speed… as if to capture Trump’s head exploding
🚨 NYT CAUGHT RED-HANDED? 🚨

Their photographer captured the bullet whizzing past Trump settings you’d use to capture a HEAD EXPLODING.

Camera was set at 1/8000 second shutter and f/1.6

Coincidence? Experts are raising serious questions. #AssassinationPlot #NYT #FalseFlag pic.twitter.com/qmCj7PwswM

— 459 Crimes (@459Crimes) July 18, 2024

Ann-

I can tell you. In all my years of photography. I never set a camera to 1/8000th of s second shutter. Only specialized lenses have apertures that go into the 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 range with the “fastest” greatest opening lens being about, .9. You need a LOT of light (light broad daylight) to shoot at 1/8000th of a second. You could never capture it indoors. This also would have been shot in rapid succession so there would be at least 30-40 frames BEFORE and AFTER this photograph which would allow investigators to actually track exact trajectory. (or see other bullets). I agree that the when the FBI director says “shrapnel or glass” there is a deep, DeepState issue.

I say again: all of the talk, bluster and outrage in the media and from Washington DC garbage humans about “incompetence” is pure head-fake.
The attempted assassination of Trump was meticulously planned, down to making sure that Zabraham Apruder was front-and-center with his shutter speed set to unthinkably fast levels, and that he was leaning on the shutter when Lee Harvey Asperger open fired so that Clown World would have their snuff reel of Trump’s brains being aerosolized to terrorize humanity with.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
This has been such a rapid-posting thread I have probably missed someone making exactly this point, but anyway...

If the picture from the New York Times photographer of the bullet going past DT's head is genuine (and maybe it is not), and it was indueed captured during an 8000 images per second burst, then this is strong evidence that the photographer, hence the NYT, were expecting the assassination attempt at a very specific time, and the organizers were attempting to get a photographic image of DT's head exploding.

Yes, and these questions have been asked by many observers out there.

The NYT photographer (Doug Mills) has a high quality professional camera, a Sony Alpha 1, costing $6500. So that setting is easy to use, at something like a 30 images-per-second fast-action capture rate that sports photographers often employ when covering ball games like cricket or baseball.

But it's still pretty odd, for sure. One question to ask would be whether he always uses that setting when covering political events. He's been interviewed about this photo, and (to me) I have to say he didn't seem evasive at all. However, it's still one of the many aspects of this whole thing that Tom Clancy would write into an espionage novel.

[Vangelo]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
...
From Ann Barnhardt:
...

Thanx for the link to Ann Barnhardt

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)
This has been such a rapid-posting thread I have probably missed someone making exactly this point, but anyway...

If the picture from the New York Times photographer of the bullet going past DT's head is genuine (and maybe it is not), and it was indueed captured during an 8000 images per second burst, then this is strong evidence that the photographer, hence the NYT, were expecting the assassination attempt at a very specific time, and the organizers were attempting to get a photographic image of DT's head exploding.

Yes, and these questions have been asked by many observers out there.

The NYT photographer (Doug Mills) has a high quality professional camera, a Sony Alpha 1, costing $6500. So that setting is easy to use, at something like a 30 images-per-second fast-action capture rate that sports photographers often employ when covering ball games like cricket or baseball.

But it's still pretty odd, for sure. One question to ask would be whether he always uses that setting when covering political events. He's been interviewed about this photo, and (to me) I have to say he didn't seem evasive at all. However, it's still one of the many aspects of this whole thing that Tom Clancy would write into an espionage novel.

I'm a very experienced photographer and have been doing photography since I was a young kid (early mid 1970's) I went completely digital in 2002 and shortly after 2002 became rather obsessed with photography. (I probably need therapy!)

I own and use many thousands of dollars worth of high quality professional gear. I am a member of a few photography clubs, mentor at one, been featured in a magazine, have a photography website, run a photography group on Flakebook, occasionally sell prints, etc. I would somewhat consider myself a "semi-pro photographer" but don't rely on photography for income.

I have shot a few events etc., but, I am mainly a Nature and Wildlife Photographer. I do a lot of "Bird Photography" which often requires high shutter speeds. I rarely shoot above 1/1000sec. unless I'm shooting birds in flight and even then I'm seldom above 1/4000sec. Every photography shoots certain things differently, has their own style so to speak.

As for this "Magic Bullet" captured whizzing by Trumps head, I find it odd he was at 1/8000sec, F/1.6, ISO-50, but, I don't really see it as being freak settings to be at. He was likely shooting at a smaller apertures, like F4 or 5.6 and when bullets started flying he likely opened the aperture up and started firing shots off at the highest frames per second the camera would shoot to freeze action and capture the most frames he possibly could using the mechanical shutter and not the electronic shutter (this is my guess.) He was probably using a 1.2 or 1.4 maximum aperture lens as they don't make a 1.6 maximum aperture lens. I'm not sure as I never used a Sony A1 but I image 1/8000sec is probably the highest it goes before switching to electronic shutter, probably why he was at F1.6 instead of 1.4, he was likely caught up in the moment and seen 1.6 reached 1/8000sec., and it metered the exposure to be "close enough" in his viewfinder and just went with that. I am surprised his photos weren't over exposed at those settings though.....I wasn't there in those conditions so have no clue as to what settings would of been under or over exposed.

Just my thoughts.....

ADDED: just to add, I've shot bee's and butterfly's etc. on bright sunshiny days many many times using apertures of 1.4 to 1.8 to blur out the background and to create a very shallow depth of field and quite often had to use an ND filter to darken the light on my sensor to prevent over-exposure and to stop the camera from going into insanely high shutter speeds.

[gord]

I agree with the general idea that if that streak is not photo shopped in, then a high shutter speed was used, but assuming the bullet's trajectory is nearly tangent to the head, and that therefore the streak is about 1-2 feet long, it's too long to have been produced by a shutter speed of 8000 per second capturing a bullet going about 2400 feet per second, having decelerated from muzzle velocity over that distance. The shutter speed would have to have been more like 1200-2400 per second, unless I screwed something up.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by jaybee (here)
If the repeat rally gets the go ahead.... people attending - in fact people attending any Trump event should use their phones to good effect and film anything and everything they can that might help deter assassination attempts

Yup -- then be sure to get whatever video your recorded offline, on a thumbdrive or such, that you can hold in your hand and remove from your phone or computer.

I am seeing (unverifiable, but seem plausible to me) reports in the comments replying to the Youtube and Rumble videos I watch analyzing the Butler failed assassination attempt, ... reports of people who thought the video they recorded while they were at the Butler rally later disappeared from their phone OR cloud storage (I'm not sure which, nor am I sure those posting such claims are sure either).

I am confident however that, for such high profile intelligence operations as assassinating U.S. Presidents, that such disappearance or alternation of video evidence stored in most desktop computers, almost all mobile phones, and almost all cloud storage, is quite possible, and if you happened to have recorded in the wrong place at the wrong time from the wrong angle, almost a certainty. No doubt Julian Assange is more expert on such matters than I am.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
As for this "Magic Bullet" captured whizzing by Trumps head, I find it odd he was at 1/8000sec, F/1.6, ISO-50, but, I don't really see it as being freak settings to be at.

Is that "streak" showing the bullet itself, or is it showing a cloud of condensation formed by and left behind by the shock wave of the supersonic bullet?

I'd guess that clouds move slower than rifle bullets, so would be easier to capture on video.