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

[SilentFeathers]

I think it was the big girl that couldn't holster her pistol that was in charge of the whole damn security detail that day. Quite amazing they haven't even suspended her.
These people are pathetic and it's looking like almost all of them were in on wanting to kill Trump that day. TDS at its finest!

‘It Was A Total Free-For-All’: Hawley Exposes Whistleblower Claims, ID Check Failures At Trump Rally

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AV58-WUHNWg

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
Sorry about the Patreon Only (minimum cost $5 for one month) video. If there is enough interest, I can download that video and snip out a little section of it. But that sort of video work is something I'm slow and clumsy at, so I'm in no hurry to get that snip here, unless it might actually make a difference to the understanding of some of us.

===

P.S. -- Well, I did break down and take a couple of key screen shots, of the before and after view of this back railing.

Notice both the white nick on the back rail, and the puff of smoke off to the right, in the second, post shot, image, right behind the forearm of the man dressed in black. That bullet did not travel past Trump's podium and through that man's torso. Rather that bullet traveled along the top of the rail along the back row.

Twitter (X) to the rescue. The key part of the video showing this bullet hitting the back railing has been extracted, slowed up, zoomed in, and annotated with an arrow, for your viewing pleasure, in the following tweet:

https://x.com/In2ThinAir/status/1818706830211923982

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
Twitter (X) to the rescue. The key part of the video showing this bullet hitting the back railing has been extracted, slowed up, zoomed in, and annotated with an arrow, for your viewing pleasure, in the following tweet:

https://x.com/In2ThinAir/status/1818706830211923982

This video in turn could be consistent with an alternative explanation that Chris Martenson, of Peak Prosperity, has just posted on his Youtube channel:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Paw5dde7COw

Perhaps, Chris speculates, the "flinch" of many of those along the back row of the southern bleacher, about the time of the first shot, was due to those who flinched feeling the sting of holding onto a piece of metal (that rail) that had just been hit with a high speed rifle bullet.

If that's the cause of the "flinch", not as John Cullen proposes the passing of a round from the woods east of the water tower, shot at the snipers on the northern hanger of the three hangers behind Trump, then that scrambles the narrative that I've been developing over several posts in the last week or two here. Time to erase the old fashioned chalk board in my mind and consider more alternatives..

I am impressed with this above video of Chris Martenson. He's open to new evidence and analysis and continuing to do the best he can to piece it all together. Good. His above video is well worth a listen.

Chris Martenson does reject the notion of a second shooter coming from a first story window in AGR Bldg #6 (the AGR bldg nearest Trump) beneath the patsy shooter on the roof, for the reason that the line of sight from those first story windows to Trump at the podium was blocked by the northern bleacher. However, as noted in the comments to that Youtube video, that particular line of sight would pass over the front row(s) of that bleacher, not the back row(s), and the front row(s) are lower down and might not block that line of sight, from Bldg #6 windows to Trump.

Unfortunately, so far as I've noticed, only John Cullen and those working with him are noticing the sound (quiet but distinct) of any silenced, subsonic, rounds.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
However, as noted in the comments to that Youtube video, that particular line of sight would pass over the front row(s) of that bleacher, not the back row(s), and the front row(s) are lower down and might not block that line of sight, from Bldg #6 windows to Trump.

Thanks to Paramount Tactical for the following analysis of the Bldg #6 window "muzzle flash", in this Youtube video

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

For several reasons, Paramount Tactical concludes that these are obviously not muzzle flashes.

First of all, while shots from that first story window of Bldg #6 might clear the lower front rows of the northern bleacher, they would have had to pass through, not above, a chain link fence, and risk also hitting one of the observers of the rally, standing at the fence, in that line of fire.

What's worse, those "muzzle flashes" do NOT occur when any audio evidence of gun fire is recorded on that same video, but DO last 10 or 15 consecutive frames (at likely 30 fps), which is way too long for muzzle flash to persist. Oh - and one can clearly see in various other video frames that that window is closed, and one can see two law enforcement officers walk past that window, close to it, clearing the building as best they can from the outside, and seeing no reason to hesitate at that window to examine it or inside it further.

Those muzzle flashes are almost certainly reflections of light, probably of the sun low in the western sky.

This is the third major "shouldn't have happened" mistake I've seen from John Cullen.

1. Cullen had a video a week or two ago of something flying past Trump just before the "ear shot" which he took to be a bullet. It was immediately obvious to me, given that whatever was flying by was moving perhaps 4 to 6 inches per frame, and that the frame rate was an ordinary 30 or 60 fps. If something moves a half a foot (6 inches) every 30 or 60 times per second, then it is moving 15 or 30 feet per second. That is 100 to 200 times too slow for a rifle bullet. It's NOT a bullet. Major 100.0% obvious oops by Cullen.
   
2. Cullen had about 3 frames of some "miniature flying saucer" flying toward Crooks (or whomever the patsy was) on the roof and figured that was the bullet that took out the patsy, before the audible shooting even began. I don't believe that a rifle bullet is going to show up on two or three consecutive video frames of an ordinary mobile phone camera looking like a several inch long flying saucer that's 20 to 40 feet from the camera. Major almost as obvious, maybe 99.9% obvious, oops.
   
3. Now these "muzzle flashes" that aren't flashes -- flash lasts too long, from an unlikely shooting position, when no sound of gun fire is recorded. Third oops.

Those who are still reading this thread, who gave up trying to convince me that John Cullen was not a reliable analyst: You were right. I was just a tad bit slow on the uptake. I've messaged John Cullen the above 3 concerns on his Patreon site ... perhaps he will have some insight that changes my mind again, but I doubt that he will.

So now I agree with the recent work of Chris Martenson that I posted above, a half day earlier, that by echo delay analysis, there seems to be at least two shooters ... but we don't yet know from where exactly.

Strategically, I remain convinced this was a Deep State planned operation, not a "lone shooter who lucked out and got the incompetent Secret Service team" case, and if that's so, I would be convinced that the Deep State operatives would not rely 100% on their patsy getting in the kill shot. They'd have other professionals shooting at Trump as well.

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Those who are still reading this thread, who gave up trying to convince me that John Cullen was not reliable analyst: You were right. I was just a tad bit slow on the uptake. I've messaged John Cullen the above 3 concerns on his Patreon site ... perhaps he will have some insight that changes my mind again, but I doubt that he will.

So now I agree with the recent work of Chris Martenson that I posted above, a half day earlier, that by echo delay analysis, there seems to be at least two shooters ... but we don't yet know from where exactly.

Strategically, I remain convinced this was a Deep State planned operation, not a "lone shooter who lucked out and got the incompetent Secret Service team" case, and if that's so, I would be convinced that the Deep State operatives would not rely 100% on their patsy getting in the kill shot. They'd have other professionals shooting at Trump as well.

It's pretty easy to over-think things and make things way more complicated than they really are, (I do it all the time!).

I was dead set on 2 shooters from day one, but up until about a week or so ago I'm almost convinced Crooks was the only shooter. I just don't see any damning evidence of more than one shooter.

I am open to changing my mind though if the second smoking gun so to speak magically appears.

I think Crooks had the rifle over-hanging the the roof ridge line for the first 3 controlled shots and the repositioned his rifle back behind the ridge line a bit when firing the next 5 shots. In my opinion this is what cause the difference in shot and echo signatures.

I honestly think Crooks handlers were so convinced by getting him so easily in and so close to Trump that he wouldn't miss. They probably trained and prepared Crooks for this for a year or two and were just waiting for the right place to pull this off.

Arrogance, desperation, and TDS (and incompetence) were huge factors in my opinion why this assassination attempt wasn't more professionally done.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! (Story subject to change with damning new evidence)

[Bill Ryan]

Adding this Chris Martenson livestream discussion to our virtual library here, but it's 4 (or maybe 5) days out of sync, as this was published last week and I completely missed it. I've NOT yet watched this, but I certainly will.

Expert Post Mortem of the Security Failures at the Trump Rally

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ou3B-rsKtP8

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
I've messaged John Cullen the above 3 concerns on his Patreon site ... perhaps he will have some insight that changes my mind again, but I doubt that he will.

Neither do I. He seems less interested in accuracy than garnering clicks (and Patreon bucks). Personally, I don't consider him a reliable source.

But it's good that many of us are on the same page now. In respect of Martenson's latest video, where he presents some interesting new insights, I prepared the following images.

Here's a close up of the parapet he's talking about as seen from where Crooks was lying. It's barely a spit away.




From a different angle (captured by a drone).




This little parapet would be an ideal hide away for a hypothetical second shooter. Tucked under the parapet he's not visible from the ground from any angle. And once his job was done he could drop to the ground in a couple of seconds and quietly slip in the front door (entrance to building sits directly beneath him).




Crucially, it's completely covered by trees. Neither Hercules-1 or Hercules-2 have line of sight to this parapet, as shown in the graphic below.




I've also drawn in a 'rough' bullet path from this position aimed at Trump. It's consistent (though not forensically conclusive of course) with the first shot that clipped Trump's ear before striking the railings on the bleacher. Also lines up with David Dutch.

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
Strategically, I remain convinced this was a Deep State planned operation, not a "lone shooter who lucked out and got the incompetent Secret Service team" case, and if that's so, I would be convinced that the Deep State operatives would not rely 100% on their patsy getting in the kill shot. They'd have other professionals shooting at Trump as well.

Agreed. And I now believe that first controlled burst of shots (1-3) came from the second shooter. Taking that as a signal, Crooks fired off the next five shots.

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
[...]

Twitter (X) to the rescue. The key part of the video showing this bullet hitting the back railing has been extracted, slowed up, zoomed in, and annotated with an arrow, for your viewing pleasure, in the following tweet:

https://x.com/In2ThinAir/status/1818706830211923982

Jack Pot!

That short clip provide a very strong evidence that Trump's ear never got clipped by that first shot because it allows for a comparison between puff of smoke, sound of shot and flinchings by calibrating them to Trump's speech and Trump's very latent/delayed reaction to the SOUND of that first shot:

" ...look what hap-pened..."
.................. ^ --- ^ ....................
...smoke puff ^ --- ^ shot sound

This changes the whole foundation of that event from official narrative with its Mandelbrot fractal rabbit holes to some sort of a Hollywood snuff production of "The Apprentice"

[jaybee]

.

Don't know if this has been suggested in the thread before..... but what about if it was ONE shooter (the patsy either Crooks or someone else).....TWO guns...?

Would the wanna~be~assassin take two guns - then if one failed there was another one to use as back up...
or anyway if the second gun was used as well it would be the start of muddying the waters - and that would be ok from the colluding perpetrators point of view ...

This could be why the shots are in two distinct groups and sound different + after the first three didn't get Trump in the head and just went through the top of his ear (thank god) the other gun was picked up and fired in Trumps direction with the hope of hitting the target - then the patsy/Crooks? was shot...

I expect a gun expert knows what different guns sound like ..? so perhaps it's been looked into already..? The one shooter with two guns possibility...

I'm not sure if the spent cartridges have ever been shown to the public...? actually shown rather than mentioned off camera...


edit to add...

SilentFeathers said...

I think Crooks had the rifle over-hanging the the roof ridge line for the first 3 controlled shots and the repositioned his rifle back behind the ridge line a bit when firing the next 5 shots. In my opinion this is what cause the difference in shot and echo signatures.

As I know next to nothing about guns... would a different gun from the same location have different echo signatures....?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

oh no...now I've started again.... ..... I doubt the exact details of what happened with the shooting and who the exact perpetrators were will ever be 100% pinned down... :/

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by jaybee (here)
As I know next to nothing about guns... would a different gun from the same location have different echo signatures....?

Can't confirm but I doubt it. If location is the same, and the speed of sound is the same, the timing of the echo won't differ.

Two guns one shooter doesn't compute for me. Why would a sniper bring two different rifles when one is good as another? And if one is superior why bring the inferior? In a high-risk/high-stakes op one rifle is luggage enough. Two of them equals twice the burden (if he hopes to get away) and twice the fingerprints if left behind. And from all the footage I've seen (before and after the attempt) Crooks only has one rifle.

[jaybee]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by jaybee (here)
As I know next to nothing about guns... would a different gun from the same location have different echo signatures....?

Can't confirm but I doubt it. If location is the same, and the speed of sound is the same, the timing of the echo won't differ.

Two guns one shooter doesn't compute for me. Why would a sniper would bring two different rifles when one is good as another? And if one is superior why bring the inferior? In a high-risk/high-stakes op one rifle is luggage enough. Two of them equals twice the burden (if he hopes to get away) and twice the fingerprints if left behind. And from all the footage I've seen (before and after the attempt) Crooks only has one rifle.

Thanks - I'm not overly attached to a One shooter with two guns hypothesis - but it was something that came into my mind a bit earlier - wasn't the shooter supposed to have left a rucksack somewhere on the roof - so perhaps as I said before a second gun - maybe a hand gun? was brought in addition to the other one - in case the primary gun failed to fire... I don't know how many shots can be fired from the kind of rifle that's alleged to have been found - but if it jammed or something after three... a hand gun could have been quickly got out of the rucksack... (?)....


edit to add this........

Active response - do you carry a back up gun

a Cop is writing about it but I think a Sniper Assassin would also maybe have a back up firearm as well....

I’m a big proponent of carrying a backup gun. I can honestly say that in more than 22 years as a cop, I haven’t worked a single shift (even when assigned full time to the range) without carrying a backup gun. I occasionally carry a second gun off duty as well.



The benefits are obvious. Your primary gun can break, get taken from you, malfunction, or run out of ammunition. A backup gun may be more easily accessible than the primary in some positions. You could also use the backup gun to arm an unarmed (but trained and capable) friend if you are involved in a situation where you have a little forewarning. There are lots of useful reasons to carry a second pistol.

oh and the back up gun could be carried anywhere on the Shooter's body - it wouldn't have to be in a rucksack...

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Not impossible, in theory, but no pistol was present (that we saw) at that rooftop crime scene, and I can't think of a reason why they'd cover it up.

I'm no gun expert either, but those audio signatures for the two separate bursts of gunfire, though different, aren't in my opinion different enough to suggest they're radically different weapons, e.g. a rifle and a pistol. I can't imagine a would-be sniper - professional or amateur - using a hand-gun on a target a hundred and fifty yards away. If one was brought along at all it'd be for self-defence only (like shooting at cops while he tried to get away).

I'm currently at 70% single shooter (Crooks), 30% two shooters. In both scenarios I submit it was a coordinated, pre-meditated attempt by a special interest black hat group to kill Trump live on TV. It's possible they expected only three shots to get the job done. They only managed to snick his ear. The following five shots come fast and furious, as if panicked. That may be the reason they too missed, or the 12 knot crosswind sent them wide. But by then it was too late: Trump was down, but alive, surrounded by his entourage. By good fortune or providence that split second turn of the head almost certainly saved his life.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
Jack Pot!

That short clip provide a very strong evidence that Trump's ear never got clipped by that first shot because it allows for a comparison between puff of smoke, sound of shot and flinchings by calibrating them to Trump's speech and Trump's very latent/delayed reaction to the SOUND of that first shot:

" ...look what hap-pened..."
................... ^ -- ^ ....................
.....smoke puff ^ -- ^ shot sound

This "image" shows up on my screen with the third "smoke puff" line shifted right a little, as in:

Did you intend for the "smoke puff" line to be right shifted thus, or did you intend something more like the following:

" look what hap-pened "
---------------- ^ -- ^ ----------
smoke puff ^ -- ^ shot sound

(Let me know if you'd like me to edit your post to this alternative.)

[norman]

If the first 3 shots sounded so different from the following shots, as they did, when recorded from the side view of the roof and 'Crooks', but sounded so much more similar when recorded from the late appearing phone footage directly in the front view of the building, wouldn't that suggest that a shooter was on the roof and another shooter was firing from inside an open window below him?

I'm still very much in the 2 shooters camp.

But, at this point, I'm kinda past caring. They missed, Trump lived on, the dangers and tricks are still plenty and our attention up ahead is more important than in the rear view mirror.

Least that's the way I see it.

[Delight]

I have a sincere question. IF Trump had manufactured this incident, wouldn't all his enemies be shouting it from the roof tops? I have been surprised by how many around me venture their opinion that it was faked.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
This changes the whole foundation of that event from official narrative with its Mandelbrot fractal rabbit holes to some sort of a Hollywood snuff production of "The Apprentice"

So ... am I reading you right? Are you considering my hypothesis (which so far most others have found, to put it politely, quite unlikely) that Trump's ear was not actually injured by a bullet, but rather by some stage craft?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Delight (here)
I have a sincere question. IF Trump had manufactured this incident, wouldn't all his enemies be shouting it from the roof tops? I have been surprised by how many around me venture their opinion that it was faked.

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to Congress that he was uncertain whether a bullet struck former President Trump in the ear.

However that line of analysis has gotten no traction. Too much "sh*t" went down that day ... all agree that someone(s) shot real bullets at Trump, and that either the Secret Service was incompetent or it was complicit.

Given the question: "Was that attempt real, or was it staged?", almost everyone, on both sides of the aisle, believe it was real.

I remain open to the possibility that the attempt was a mix of both, that most of the people who were at that rally and who knew that "something was going to go down" there, that day, expected Trump to be assassinated, and were signed up to do their part in that assassination. Some Deep State inner circle people also expected that. There was a real, serious as a heart attack, attempt on Trump's life.

However I continue to speculate that Trump and his inner security team got wind of this, and "broke" the assassin's plans, turning the assassination attempt into a successful sting operation. Somehow, without it being noticed by the Deep State, Trump and his team reduced the risk to Trump to an acceptable level, while letting the attempt proceed and appear to all to have just failed by some miracle or serious luck.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by norman (here)
But, at this point, I'm kinda past caring. They missed, Trump lived on,

The "lone nut shooter" verus the "multiple shooters, including a soon to be dead patsy" alternatives make a big difference to the Secret Service, and to those in the Deep State who might depend on the Secret Service to be a reliable, publicly trusted, covert agent of death and other evil acts.

In the "lone nut shooter" alternative ... the Secret Service messed up and needs to improve their training, procedures and resources. Please send more money. Yawn.

In the "multiple shooters" case, some in the Secret Service and whomever directed them should spend the remaining days of their life on death row, while the Secret Service itself is cleansed of its treasonous elements, perhaps requiring its complete dismantlement.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
I'm no gun expert either, but those audio signatures for the two separate bursts of gunfire, though different, aren't in my opinion different enough to suggest they're radically different weapons, e.g. a rifle and a pistol. I can't imagine a would-be sniper - professional or amateur - using a hand-gun on a target a hundred and fifty yards away.

I agree - whatever was shot was shot using a rifle. If one shooter shot two different weapons, then that shooter had two rifles at hand, perhaps one "normal" AR-15 shooting "normal" high velocity rounds, and one silenced rifle shooting 300 Blackout subsonic rounds.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Two guns one shooter doesn't compute for me. Why would a sniper bring two different rifles when one is good as another?

Perhaps one rifle is a "normal" AR-15 shooting "normal" high velocity rounds, and the other is a silenced rifle shooting 300 Blackout subsonic rounds.