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

[Hermoor]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
I thought f-stops determined depth of field, not shutter speed. Granted, getting fast shutter speeds and tight f-stops at the same time is (I'm guessing here ... at the ragged edge of my knowledge) more difficult. I would think that you would need a fast sensor, quality lenses and lots of light - but Mills had all those. Is that camera's auto-focus so good that it might have deliberately focused in on the bullet's contrail, center of shot? That would be sweet, if so.

Mills claimed to be using f/1.6 on an f/1.4 prime lens with a very low ISO (I think he said 60) and a shutter speed of 1/8000 of a second.

In that context....

His primary objective was to get a razor sharp image of Trump's face with everything else blurred to one extent or another. The last thing he wanted was to blur Trump's face or get it out of focus. Trump's baseball cap should also be razor sharp. It absolutely isn't, in spite of being on practically the same focal plane as his face.

F/1.6 was important for a very shallow depth of field. And also letting in a lot of light through the aperture to reach the sensor.

An ISO of 60 will yield a very sharp image. The higher the ISO, the more grain and noise the image will have. High ISOs are typically for low light conditions. The rule of thumb is to use the lowest ISO possible to get the clearest, most detailed image. You can't get much lower than 60, it's really low.

The natural light conditions appeared to be strong and bright with a low sun almost directly in Trump's face. Plus there were two huge spotlights on a lighting rig just in front of the stage. The light conditions plus f/1.6 plus a very low ISO meant Mills had to bump his shutter speed up to crazy fast levels to expose his images correctly. Hence 1/8000s to avoid over exposing his images.

Under those conditions and with the exceptional quality of his camera and lens, Mills could have easily used an ISO in the thousands to get a really good image. In a traditional sense his shutter speed was overkill for that type of shot, absolutely nuts. So was he intentionally fishing for a 'magic bullet' moment? Or was he intentionally fishing for the tech jargon cover for such a moment to be photoshopped in later? Was the f/1.6 and bokeh spiel covering for anything? The blurred figures in the crowd are a fair distance behind Trump. He could have used a chunk narrower aperture and still blurred them out.

The camera's autofocus is the best there is. It would have been specifically aimed at (and searching for) Trump's face/eyes/smile. The only way to stop this, hypothetically, is to use manual focus.

The image looks like it was taken by a hobbyist in a hurry using manual focus with shakey hands. Plus that crazy hobbyist also went and turned off the camera's in body stabilisation system and the lens' stabilisation system too. It's a hell of an image. But he did manage the million to one magic bullet/magic contrail shot too, of course, so there's that.

Mills' interview was so flakey and tedious I drifted in and out of it the first couple of times I listened. His images obviously have to go through his editor before publication. But I think he also said he has to surrender all of his digital equipment to the secret services and their checks before going home at the end of the day. That process could allow all manner of censorship and manipulation to enter the fray.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Hermoor (here)
The natural light conditions appeared to be strong and bright with a low sun almost directly in Trump's face. Plus there were two huge spotlights on a lighting rig just in front of the stage. The light conditions plus f/1.6 plus a very low ISO meant Mills had to bump his shutter speed up to crazy fast levels to expose his images correctly. Hence 1/8000s to avoid over exposing his images.

That makes sense, to this photo newbie.

Posted by Hermoor (here)
So was he intentionally fishing for a 'magic bullet' moment?

The conspiracy lobe of my brain figures (1) fuzzy focus means hiding some imperfect photoshop edits, and (2) he was searching for the exploding head shot of a career. I presume that Mills does not ordinarily sit in the front row of Trump rallies. Someone sent him here expecting something "special" to photograph ... but I doubt they got what they expected.

Posted by Hermoor (here)
The image looks like it was taken by a hobbyist in a hurry using manual focus with shakey hands.

True - The sharp focus one should routinely get with such equipment, in such lighting, of such a subject ... is suspiciously absent ... and the language of his interview was similarly suspiciously fuzzy.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by helium (here)
The one video that haunts me were those brief moments when the photographers were led from the back of the stage to the front, on purpose, just before shots were fired. That was just too coincidental to ignore.

One of several fine points in a fine post.

Someone, who had authority to move photographers out of the area behind Trump's podium, just before the shooting, did not want photographers there, then.

From my perspective, this is yet more evidence that someone working with/for Trump did not want any good photos of Trump's right ear to be taken, in the interval from the first shot, to Trump starting to emerge from the dog pile under his protective Secret Service agents.

This is consistent with my hypothesis that Trump's ear was injured, as planned, while he was under that dog pile, and not by a passing bullet.

[meat suit]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
It would be an amazing piece of stagecraft indeed (bordering on magic) to apply a streak of fake blood between this frame (no blood) ...
...
and this frame (bloodied from touching his ear) ...

What's so amazing about having a little, easily burst, packet of stage blood behind his right ear, hiding behind his magnificent hair for the ten (or whatever) minutes he was in public view, before the shooting began?

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Genuine question (cordially asked), Are you sure you're not trying to bang a square peg into a round hole here -- trying to strong-arm the evidence to fit your theory? Because I'm sorry, nothing about it adds up.

That Trump was really hit by a real bullet isn't even a question in my mind. And to be frank, I'm slightly baffled it is in yours.

I don't believe in miracles, and I don't adopt one in bazillion "lucky shot" explanations unless I can find no option.

I do believe in people acting in character, especially in critical scenarios that they've obviously anticipated for much of their lives, when the outcome ends up being so nearly perfectly advantageous to them, against all apparent odds.

Once a few trivial conjectures and mistakes that you and others have pointed out (thanks!) have been corrected, I can find nothing in my hypothetical scenario that is surprising or unlikely. Everything and everyone behaved just as one might most likely expect them to behave.

Time and time again, Trump gets apparent adversaries to do exactly what Trump wants them to do, because Trump has successfully arranged the situation such that the other party chooses, quite predictably, to do just that.

When Trump gets the opportunity to set the stage, and he's had decades to set this stage and to know that it would be an absolutely critical event in his life and his endeavors, this is how he plays the game.

Similarly, everyone else who played a significant role in this event played right to their character and capacity, just as one would expect them to most likely do.

Given a choice between what is most likely, and what is most unlikely, I am at a loss to understand why anyone is still giving more than a passing consideration to the most unlikely.

===

Analogy:

Let's say (as might be the case - I've not gone back and researched this) that Bobby Fischer, as a young and upcoming chess genius, knew that eventually he would face whomever at the time was recognized as the best chess player of the time ... perhaps it was Boris Spassky, in the late 1960's.

Let's further say that Fischer had a reputation (I've no idea if he did) of closely studying the games of likely upcoming opponents, and that there were plenty of Spassky's games available for Fischer to study.

Now imagine that Fischer gets his first, highly anticipated, match with Spassky, and that Spassky plays his usual favorite opening and style of play, until late in the middle game when Fischer makes an unexpected sacrifice, an apparent error, that only in hindsight was understood to be a brilliant move that led to Fischer checkmating Spassky, a dozen moves later. "Not possible", all the chess commentators are saying. "Must be luck." "No one could have anticipated that checkmate, a dozen moves ahead of time." I would counter that "Fischer knew." He might not have known in the same way that you or I would know such things ... but he knew. That's how Fischer played.

Chess aside, back to Trump times.

This is how Trump plays. He's been doing it for decades, and he's known for decades that this particular event, or something closely resembling it, would happen ... the deep state would assign an assassin to shoot him, in the head, on live TV, after his security had been laid almost bear. Trump has clearly been working with excellent intelligence into his adversaries (he'd be long gone, six foot under, buried in a footnote of history, otherwise). He's been working with a number of others who know that taking down the Satanic deep state that has been feasting (literally) on humanity and on this planet's resources for hundreds if not thousands of years would be difficult in the extreme.

Do NOT DOUBT Trump's deliberate moves here just because "no one could have anticipated and planned so many details so well." That's exactly how Trump plays and Trump has had a near lifetime, since JFK was shot in Dallas when Trump was 17 years old, to anticipate and refine his plans, and to focus and energize his efforts, for exactly this event.

If Trump knew this particular assassination attempt was being laid out for his rally in Butler, PA, and if he knew who the intended "real" assassin was, the sniper who "couldn't miss" at that range, then all Trump had to do was "make a deal" with that sniper, a deal that greatly benefitted that sniper as well. "Just miss, and we'll take care of you." Then a trivial, I mean really trivial, bit of stagecraft involving Trump and one or two of his most trusted close body security agents, and it was fait accompli - good as gold - done deal.

I honestly cannot imagine Trump NOT choosing that path, if the choice was presented to him. Can you?

Given the brilliant success of Trump's counter-assassination operation that day in Butler, and given that Trump has survived and gained strength after eight years of relentless, focused, attacks from the Deep State, and given also the increasingly desperate and sloppy work of his adversaries, I also cannot imagine that Trump didn't know that that assassination was planned. Can you?

Excellent reply!
I have raised this idea in a few sentences very early on in this thread.
If team Trump knew of the planned attemt then this would be the way to play.

That blood would have been a little gimmick attached to Trumps ear going 'pop' at the right time in this case.

And looking forward, I hope that the possibly planned assassintation of K.Harris at the DNC by a 'Trumper' will embarassingly fail via genius chess moves, so M. Obama wont have the opportunity to step in and 'save' the day...

[helium]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Posted by helium (here)
The one video that haunts me were those brief moments when the photographers were led from the back of the stage to the front, on purpose, just before shots were fired. That was just too coincidental to ignore.

One of several fine points in a fine post.

Someone, who had authority to move photographers out of the area behind Trump's podium, just before the shooting, did not want photographers there, then.

From my perspective, this is yet more evidence that someone working with/for Trump did not want any good photos of Trump's right ear to be taken, in the interval from the first shot, to Trump starting to emerge from the dog pile under his protective Secret Service agents.

This is consistent with my hypothesis that Trump's ear was injured, as planned, while he was under that dog pile, and not by a passing bullet.

Well, the person who made that youtube video tried to argue your point. Problem is there's not a lot of evidence available to support it. Not that I'd throw the argument out, but I did originally intend to use the video to make the case that there was foreknowledge of the shooting and that is why the photographers were ushered to the front of the stage, to get nice pics of Trump's exploding head. Which didn't happen, and the pics we did get were legendary, just sort of opposite of the kind of legend that was intended by whomever might have wanted poor Donald dead. Please excuse me if I'm belaboring the point. I'm sure you do understand what my intention was in the posts I made.

I wish there was some way to know which team was manipulating reality that day. Obviously, as many have said, Trump himself would be likely to organize the events if he could, but I'd prefer to think that he'd not wish death and injury on others. I'd rather believe that Donald's enemies were responsible. And I can't see how the Trump team could discover the plot and make it work in their favor without great risk to both Trump and many others.

Is Team Trump nasty enough to see others killed or injured for election purposes? There are a lot of people who would think so. I think they are wrong. Or I'd like to think they are wrong. The problem I see with such a scenario is that Trump would be putting himself at risk with bullets flying. So I tend to stick to the crooked feds doing yet another op, just like they've done so many, many times in the past.

Personal experience makes me suspect that the blood was real. The injury was obviously very minor and due mostly to burning and not ripping or tearing of tissues. The wound would not bleed for very long, being partially cauterized by heat. And the wound would not be obviously visible after a day or so. At first I suspected that it wasn't his ear but the scalp next to or behind the ear that was singed by the bullet. Hair would cover that up easily. The scalp and the thin skin of the back of ear will bleed profusely. Scalp wounds are notorious for non-stop bleeding. But in this case there was heat, and cauterization to some degree.

I wish Elon had asked Donald a few questions about that injury in the conversation yesterday that stirred up such a hornet's nest for no good reason. It was a disappointing 'interview.' I wanted to hear something more personal instead of the same campaign rhetoric that's on a tapeloop.

I'm finding it very difficult to accept how triggered people can get over nothing, and totally miss what's important. I've been spending hours and hours reading youtube comments that are basically nothing but rants, calling Trump a dictator. Ignorance has taken a firm hold on weak minds. And I'm NOT defending Trump. I haven't listened to anything he's said even when he was president. Not until the bullets flew and I became curious about who this guy is. I have to say that I was mildly impressed when I did listen to him. I haven't listened to a US president since Carter. Bush-the-Younger's voice made my skin crawl. I did listen to Bill Clinton play his sax.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by helium (here)
Is Team Trump nasty enough to see others killed or injured for election purposes?

Hundreds of millions of people, if not billions of people, have died before their time, as a result of the evils of the Satanists who feast upon humanity and earth's resources.

This battle is about far more than just winning another election.

If Satan's agents can be set back, and kept from further extending their tyranny over humanity, that's worth risking the lives of a few humans.

As any successful combat General knows, and must live with, it's not a question of whether any young men die as a result of his decisions. Rather it's more a question of whether more young men die fighting for the other side, than die fighting for his side.

If Trump refuses to risk any lives, he might as well retire to a tropical beach today, and sip Pina Colata's with Melania for his remaining days. (Granted, I doubt Pina Colata's are Trump's style.)

Had that been myself, rather than Corey Comperatore, who's head was in the wrong place at the wrong time, in the line of fire, that day in Butler, I trust and hope that I'd be saying the same thing, had I a way to speak of such, after my demise. Far better I go that way, with my boots on, in my 70's, than some of the "do stupid things, win stupid prizes" foolishness I engaged in now and then in my youth.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
Given a choice between what is most likely, and what is most unlikely, I am at a loss to understand why anyone is still giving more than a passing consideration to the most unlikely.

Exactly my position too, only, we tend to differ on what we think is "likely" and "unlikely". And that's fair enough, I have no qualms with what is, at the end of the day, a trivial difference in opinion. You believe Trump had prior knowledge of the assassination attempt. He infiltrated the group behind it to re-engineer the scenario so he came out on top, exposing them at the same time. Something of that order, correct?

I meanwhile contest that Trump did not have prior knowledge, was caught completely unaware and (literally) in the cross-hairs. He escaped the rally that day with his life.

Where and how our theories diverge is not that big a deal, because I think we both strongly agree that a conspiracy to erase Trump (hatched by God-hating evil bastards) did exist, and it failed.

You've shared your theory and in detail, and provided a backdrop to substantiate its inner workings (the Fischer analogy was a good one). I've taken its every aspect into careful consideration and...I just don't think it went down that way. Even had Trump concocted a scheme so dangerous, so elaborate, to trap and expose the deep state, I do not believe he'd permit the use of live rounds flying around his head, or endanger the lives of innocent (and Trump-supporting) patriots. I just don't. Nonetheless, thank you for your detailed hypothesis. Though I reject it, I respect it, and you, as always.

In retort, I will present my own synopsis -- in detail, beginning to end -- not only for your consideration, but in general, as we enter this, the 67th page of a most engrossing thread, one I do believe must stand out on the internet as one of the most comprehensive collections of resources on the events of that day in Butler.

I'll be posting presently.

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
Given a choice between what is most likely, and what is most unlikely, I am at a loss to understand why anyone is still giving more than a passing consideration to the most unlikely.

Exactly my position too, only, we tend to differ on what we think is "likely" and "unlikely". And that's fair enough, I have no qualms with what is, at the end of the day, a trivial difference in opinion. You believe Trump had prior knowledge of the assassination attempt. He infiltrated the group behind it to re-engineer the scenario so he came out on top, exposing them at the same time. Something of that order, correct?

I meanwhile contest that Trump did not have prior knowledge, was caught completely unaware and (literally) in the cross-hairs. He escaped the rally that day with his life.

Where and how our theories diverge is not that big a deal, because I think we both strongly agree that a conspiracy to erase Trump (hatched by God-hating evil bastards) did exist, and it failed.

You've shared your theory and in detail, and provided a backdrop to substantiate its inner workings (the Fischer analogy was a good one). I've taken its every aspect into careful consideration and...I just don't think it went down that way. Even had Trump concocted a scheme so dangerous, so elaborate, to trap and expose the deep state, I do not believe he'd permit the use of live rounds flying around his head, or endanger the lives of innocent (and Trump-supporting) patriots. I just don't. Nonetheless, thank you for your detailed hypothesis. Though I reject it, I respect it, and you, as always.

In retort, I will present my own synopsis -- in detail, beginning to end -- not only for your consideration, but in general, as we enter this, the 67th page of a most engrossing thread, one I do believe must stand out on the internet as one of the most comprehensive collections of resources on the events of that day in Butler.

I'll be posting presently.

This thread is quite the historical thread and is loaded with valuable information regardless of ones perspective and hypothesis as to what may of or may not of happened on that insane day.

Personally for me in my own mind, this is where I'm at with this event:

I'm 99.9% sure this was not some theatrical planned out event orchestrated by Trump and his insiders.
I'm 90% sure Crooks was the only shooter.
I'm 100% sure elements of the Secret Service, FBI, DHS, Local LE were involved.
I'm 100% sure a HUGE degree of this whole assassination attempt was fuel mostly by hatred, arrogance, and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I'll predict that they will put Trump in jail or confine him to his home with an ankle bracelet at his sentencing next month. (If they don't kill him before then).

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

First of all, I proceed with the view that what occurred in Butler was a genuine attempt to assassinate Trump, not a sting by Trump to 'catch them in the act'. I base this hypothesis on the evidence at hand, namely that;

1. Shots were fired at Trump
2. By fate or providence he turned his head; the first bullet grazed his ear
3. A visible injury backs that up, and visible blood
4. The same bullet skimmed the railings of the right-hand bleacher, before bursting the hydraulic hose of a forklift
5. Subsequent bullets hit spectators (one fatally)
6. Bodycam footage shows that fatality (Comperatore) being carried away by police
7. We can trace the path of the first bullet back from the hydraulic hose, back to the railings, back to Trump's ear, and back to the point of origin. That origin is the roof of building six in the AGR complex --

-- exactly where Thomas Crooks was sighted, and photographed, looking down the sights of a AR-15 assault rifle.

Ergo, a genuine attempt against Trump's life was attempted by Thomas Crooks.

Operation Get Trump

Goal >
-Kill Trump (MAGA dies with him)

Methodology >
-By assassination at rally live on TV. Have photographers waiting and ready to capture kill-shot. Feature it on front cover of Time magazine.

Essential criteria >
-Use unattached asset (amateur/civilian) – leave NO deep state fingerprints behind. This is a single shooter operation.

Multiple shooters would be much too messy. Too many LEOs to control (or silence). If a pro-shooter was discovered all cover is blown (conspiracy). Plus, members of the public are armed with cellphones. The chance of being observed is much too high. Chance of escaping without detection is almost non-existent.

Multiple shooters are also what people would expect: triangulation of crossfire. But this is a known calling card of deep state involvement. Multiple shots from multiple locations would effectively prove a conspiracy. They have to stay as far away from that as possible.

As far away from Dallas '63, in other words.

That was a total sh!tshow (for the alphabets), not to mention the Dallas PD when Ruby shot the patsy, Oswald, live on TV. Suspicion of complicity (C_I_A involvement) clouded the Kennedy assassination from day one. Public confidence in them never recovered. It took further blows when the Warren Commission released its laughable excuse of a report. Then Watergate happened in '72, the Church Committee hearings in '75, House Select Committee on Assassinations in '76 (and what that dug up), Iran-Contra in '87, and so on. One dark blemish after another.

And it would make no strategic sense.

This has to be a single shooter, unattached to any government agency.

And lay these foundations early. Establish identity of the shooter within 24 hours. Release pictures of him firing the shot that kills President Trump. Let the public post these on their social media accounts. Allow them to shape this narrative.

Setting the Stage

Adjacent to the Farm Show Grounds, where Trump will speak, lies the AGR complex. It's close enough to Trump and far enough away from the snipers to give the shooter a fighting chance.

And there's this...

Everyone and their dog has a cellphone these days. Exploit this by opening up AGR for people to freely walk around in. Technically they're trespassing (don't have tickets to the rally) but their presence exposes the shooter to both eye-witnesses and photography.

This is a vital point. Allowing Oswald to escape into custody had not been part of the plan (in '63). Ruby was a crude plan (b), and it gave rise to all the conspiracy theories. For sixty years they've been unable to control or contain them. This time, they want the shooter to be seen; they want photographic evidence of him lying in position and firing his weapon, before being taken out by a sniper. "Crazed lone-gunman" will then be an easy sell -- (meaning, by extension, that they had nothing to do with it).

The Patsy, or (The Tool of Choice)

At some point Crooks is identified as their man (perhaps Blackrock had a role in that). He comes into radar range from activity he's engaged in online. Web chatter, google searches, phone use – he triggers 'the algorithm', let's call it. They log and collect everything he does and says, and then go to work on moulding their would-be asset.

I suspect alphabet agencies have specialist teams who identify such individuals on the internet. Youngsters make the best candidates because they're naïve and easily suggestible. Other desirable traits may include: intelligence (better than average), few or no friends (a misfit), gun enthusiast, domestic abuse, and signs of mental illness/vulnerability (if they take daily psyche meds -- that's a win/win.)

Over time Crooks is steered into a radical mindset. A prod here, a suggestion there, always applied from a safe distance. He forms a fixation and they fuel that fixation. It's behavioural programming of a most discreet and insidious kind. Crooks becomes their tool without him even knowing it (maybe this is how school shooters are made).

In short, they want Trump gone but they get some dumb kid to pull the trigger. A civilian assassin whose strings they pull from the shadows. I argue the most useful patsy is the patsy who doesn't know he is one (Sirhan Sirhan). Best of all with this method: no breadcrumbs lead back to them.

Eventually, Crooks gets (is given) the idea to assassinate Trump. The kid's been shunned, even bullied, all his life; this is his chance to get a name for himself, to go down in a blaze of glory (and infamy). Again from a distance, they aid and abet him on his crusade (online, in a whatapp group, or by a friendly 'mentor' at the gun club). Crooks thinks he's operating alone, and he sort of is, but the path he's walking has been mapped out for him, like the circuit of a maze for a rat. It leads to the rally in Butler, his locality, and the roof of building six where he'll fire his rifle. He probably doesn't expect to survive the attempt, but in his mind that's all right, there was nothing else to live for anyway. He has (was given) a Lee Harvey Oswald death-wish.

The Secret Service

Set up the SS to 'bungle' the security cordon. Certain trusted snipers are read-in to the op. These are ordered to stand down until Crooks completes his mission (when Trump is eliminated). Unfriendlies (snipers perhaps loyal to Trump and not read-in) are positioned badly on purpose.

Also on purpose, 'fail' to coordinate with local police so no one gets posted to the roof. This roof is left wide open for Crooks to utilize with impunity.

Of course, a chance exists that Crooks misses his window, or screws up and gets arrested. No 'Ruby' would be needed to shut him up though; as far as Crooks knows he's alone. It's also possible Crooks will chicken out. It's a patience game (for them). Perhaps they're thinking, If not this rally, then the next one, or the one after that, or, if not Crooks, we'll use another patsy -- right up to November. They have a plan (b), a plan (c) and a plan (d) waiting in the wings. For all we know, Crooks was a plan (b) or a plan (c), and other previous attempts (that we don't know about) failed.

The snipers in the building overlooking building six first spot Crooks on the ground with a rangefinder. They take a picture of him, and 'leak' it online within the hour. Then, one after the other, these same snipers leave their posts.

Crooks climbs onto the roof unopposed, then gallivants across it in full view of officers on the ground. Bodycam footage proves this. Eventually, Butler police catch sight of him. A cop is hoisted up and confirms he has a long-gun, yet he doesn't raise the alarm. Trump continues to speak on stage.

...It's one catastrophic 'mistake' after another.

Execution

The gaps in security make it easy for Crooks. However, he's never spotted with a gun until he's in position. I think it was waiting for him, either on the roof, or in the gutter, or stashed behind an A/C unit where he hid it the night before. He's already done his homework with the rooftop layout, he's cased the area with a drone. He heads for building six. It's closest to Trump, and it's wide open.

He settles on the roof's east end where only one sniper team has line of sight.

That sniper team is Hercules-1. They've been ordered to kill Crooks when mission complete. Hercules-2, possibly not read-in, are badly positioned in a blind spot.

As Crooks moves into position reality probably hits home: this is real-life now, not an afternoon at the range, where he's been practising this moment for months. He didn't account for the weather: the roof is like a hotplate. Sweat is pouring, his heart is racing. Suddenly, he hears shouts from below. The cops have spotted him, and are closing in. It has to be now.

He takes aim at Trump 150 ft away. The red dot is jumping. Trump's head is tiny...so far away, and Crooks isn't the greatest shot. It takes all of his effort to steady his arm, then, holding his breath, he squeezes the trigger, once, twice, three times.

Crooks isn't sure if he's hit him or not, but Trump is on the floor. To hit him now, he must raise himself a few inches and lift his barrel over the ridge of the roof. In doing so he knows he's exposing himself to Hercules-1, but he has no choice, not if he wants to make completely sure that Trump is down for good. He fires off a quick burst of five shots at the podium. They're wild and wayward; mostly they spray the bleachers.

Now Hercules-1, who can delay no longer, spring to action. Thinking the operation complete, they take aim at Crooks. A single deadly round hits him in the forehead, killing him instantly.

In conclusion

This was a conspiracy of malicious enablement; on the part of the Secret Service, of premeditated dereliction and neglect.

Those behind this devilish plot wanted the public to think this was some crazy kid acting alone. And that's easy to do when he was acting alone.

I propose this is/was the best and safest method of executing this operation. It's low risk, and very high reward. Because the more it looks like the act of a lone-shooter the less people (conspiracy-sniffers like us) will believe it. And with no breadcrumbs leading to a hidden hand, we're left fighting over theories for years.

Because no evidence will ever surface that ties 'them' to this operation. It's the perfect hit, killing three birds with one very cost-effective stone: Trump, MAGA, and an election loss in November. As a bonus, a pro-Second Amendment candidate gets killed with an AR-15.

No one will ever know that Crooks was manipulated from the beginning, manoeuvred to that rooftop, and compelled to pull that trigger. (Again, I ask, is this how school shooters are made?)

The deep state will always deny it, and never break a sweat doing so. Beyond shoddy security (leading to a few low-level casualties -- and so what?) nothing tangible will implicate them. They have plausible deniability. And that's the best kind of deniability there is.

If all the above is true, it played out to near perfection. All the suspicion and finger-pointing in the world will be in vain. Not a single bad actor will end up in court. They one-hundred percent got away with it.

But so did Trump. Crooks missed!

That's my current working theory (subject to revision as always).

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/catturd2/status/1823801165487988887

[ThePythonicCow]

The Deep State always uses multiple shooters for such key assassinations. Some shots always miss, or at least aren't fatal. Shooters MUST keep shooting until the target is clearly DEAD.

Failure is not an option in such operations, especially when they are run in full public view. The targeted individual MUST die, then and there, in public view. Especially in this time of doubles, clones and actors, anything less than public death, on the spot, leaves that public persona, the "Trump" we know as a public, alive and well, even if now played by some other biological body.

"Deep state fingerprints" are not a concern. All investigations (FBI, CIA, DOJ, DHS, Congress, State, Local, U.S. Presidential Commissions, ...) are controlled by the Deep State, all the time. All crime scene management and evidence collection/destruction is controlled by the Deep State. All reporting is a combination of Deep State controlled or gas lit, confused, misdirected or marginalized by the Deep State. The majority of the population will not unite in a common understanding and revolt ... and if revolution begins to arise, those are scenarios in which the Deep State has a long history of prevailing.

The Deep State would never rely on a young, brain washed man shooting an ordinary AR-15, to ensure that Trump was dead, dead, dead. They never have, and they didn't this time.

There have always been some men who choose, repeatedly, to put their life on the line, and who have certain skills that they can rely on to prevail. Trump has absolutely known, up close and personal, that his life is on the line. Each morning he wakes up might be his last. He has apparently survived several serious assassination attempts. Trump absolutely has a skill of reading people and of knowing when and how and with whom he can "make a deal" that will hold up.

Trump has long known, up close and personal, that he almost certainly would be the target of a major, public assassination event. His life and his mission depended on winning that engagement ... winning it Big Time.

Trump made a deal with the "real" sniper: We know who you are. You know we know you know. You kill me; we kill you. You miss; we protect you. Trump correctly trusted that that deal would hold. It did.

The "real" sniper honored that deal, and missed Trump. Both that sniper, and Trump, knew that would happen, and both bet their lives on that happening.

Trump absolutely put himself, his close Secret Service body guards, and some audience members at risk of being hit by whatever shots Crooks would then get off, after the "real" sniper started the shooting. Trump's personal risk of a kill shot to the head or heart was low, as he was beneath a dog pile of Secret Service agents. Those are the sorts of risks that warriors take, be they ordinary police or firemen, hunters, rescue, fighter pilots, ... or historic leaders. They (myself included, in far less glamorous ways in my younger years and likely many of us here reading this) have long done such, throughout history. We've put our lives on the line, knowingly trusting in certain skills, our mastery of certain situations, and an adequate understanding of what the risks and odds are, then and there.

The argument that, essentially, all humans are wimps all the time and would never knowingly, of sound mind, take such risks, with the lives of themselves or others ... that argument holds no water with me.

[SilentFeathers]

BUMP

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
This is really strange; at 34:00 to 37:03 in this video it shows one cop bringing out a rifle and carefully leaning it up near the door and then shortly after another operater/agent casually comes in to frame and suspiciously looks around to see if anyone is watching him and then in a nonchalantly manner grabs this rifle and walks off.
Could this be the second shooters gun? Something absolutely doesn't look right about this.....

There's also something very odd and suspicious about this Greg Nichol dude too, and a couple of others in his little circle.

I'm still leaning towards Crooks as the only shooter but I am NOT 100% there yet. Just too many weird things going on for sure.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3-AKAEC8c6g

I've watched this section of the video several times (mentioned in red above) and I am almost certain that this is NOT a rifle, but a RIFLE BARREL.

This makes no sense, why would someone want a rifle barrel and not the whole rifle removed from the premises????? Where is the rest of the gun?????

Are they removing evidence????????????????

What if there was suppose to be a second shooter and Crooks went off script because he was spotted on the roof, panicked, and started firing before the 2nd shooter was in position?

Something isn't sitting with me right about this rifle barrel and the behavior of Greg Nichol and 2 or 3 of the other operators.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Just a cross-reference here. For those who have been following the work of John Cullen, Chris Martenson briefly discusses Cullen starting at 21:38 in his livestream conversation of 1 August.

Chris Martenson absolute nailed Cullen to the wall. As a I result of

(1) Martenson's comments here, and (2) Martenson's observation elsewhere that

the "flinch" of almost everyone along the top back row of the southern bleacher at the same instant that a bullet clearly hit the back rail of that bleacher ... that that "flinch" might have been a reaction to having a hand on that back rail as that rifle round hit it (steel stings sharply if hit with a rifle round) ... rather than that "flinch" being evidence as Cullen saw it of a silent (subsonic) rifle round fired from the trees toward the northern sniper team that traveled past the intended target (some Secret Service snipers) and along that back rail ...

I changed my views here on this thread, canceled my Patreon subscription to Cullen, and sent Cullen a message with my key concerns with his work, to which message I have, not surprisingly, heard no response.

Score: Martenson 1, Cullen 0.

Earlier in this thread, I had followed and supported several "observations" by John Cullen. One by one, those "observations" fell by the wayside, and I eventually realized, what most others here realized earlier, that Cullen was better at producing revenue generating click bait than he was at reliable crime scene analysis.

The one item that I had left from Cullen's "observations" that I still figured might be good was his finding of silenced, subsonic, rounds in one of the audio recordings. Since Cullen had lost credibility with me (eventually) and others (sooner), I didn't pursue or think about those "subsonic" rounds further, but I was comfortable just leaving that "observation" as a loose end, and putting it aside for later consideration.

Now, starting at the 8:40 mark in the following Paramount Tactical video, the "silenced subsonic" "observation" is laid to rest. They carefully show what sounds (plenty) and muzzle flashes (practically none) such rounds produce, which don't match what Cullen heard in his audio evidence. My over developed conspiracy theory brain lobe is now speculating that the "top notch" sniper Ray Martin who supported Cullen's "silenced, subsonic" observations was earning a little money on the side from some three letter agency, by obfuscating the public narratives with some "fog of war" gaslighting. In any case, I am no longer aware of any good evidence that there were silenced, subsonic, rounds.

The only rounds I know of and still consider are the same rounds pretty much everyone else is considering:

1. Three slower paced rounds (which I documented above, thanks to some audio Chris Martenson provides, have a more "muffled" sound, as if shot from inside some building, such as from right beneath AGR Bldg #6 eaves),
   
2. then five rapid fire shots (with a more vibrant high frequency sound, and which I presume comes from the patsy on the roof, spraying and praying),
   
3. then a couple of isolated shots later on, presumably coming from law enforcement or Secret Service, taking out the patsy.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QlzGl242xzQ

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
First of all, I proceed with the view that what occurred in Butler was a genuine attempt to assassinate Trump, not a sting by Trump to 'catch them in the act'.

The choice of "genuine attempt" versus "sting by Trump" is not an exclusive, one or the other, but not both, choice.

My view is that it was both. As we agree, there was a very genuine attempt to kill Trump, but as we don't agree, Trump got wind of it and turned it into a sting operation.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

1. We can trace the path of the first bullet back from the hydraulic hose, back to the railings, back to Trump's ear, and back to the point of origin. That origin is the roof of building six in the AGR complex --

-- exactly where Thomas Crooks was sighted, and photographed, looking down the sights of a AR-15 assault rifle.

... but also exactly in the same line of fire as from where there is a ventilation hole in the southern wall of that building, just below the eaves, and beneath and in front of the patsy on the roof.

We can't reliably tell from the bullet trajectory (especially given that the bleachers, hydraulic hose, and podium were removed ASAP after the event, so we can't measure exact vertical alignments and angles) whether the first three bullets were fired from on the roof or from just beneath its eaves.

However we can tell from the frequency spectrum of the sounds of those shots, as recorded just west of the building, that the first three shots were NOT shot from where the next five shots were fired from. The first three shorts are distinctly more muffled (and have a slight but distinct difference in the crack-boom delays) than the following five shots. See my Post #1314, above, for this evidence. What I marked Shots_A in that post are not the same as what I marked Shots_B ... different audio spectrum.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Ergo, a genuine attempt against Trump's life was attempted by Thomas Crooks.

Yes, not just by Crooks (or whomever that patsy was), but also by the Deep State, who at the very least did their very best to sabotage Trump's security protection, and since moments after the shooting, have been doing their very best to cover up and destroy evidence. Means, motive, opportunity, and a prior, similar, criminal record ... sure looks suspicious to me.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Essential criteria >
-Use unattached asset (amateur/civilian) – leave NO deep state fingerprints behind. This is a single shooter operation.

The Deep State has been running "lone shooter" operations (with covert real shooters) successfully for "ever", and relying on their control of the follow-up investigation, reporting and prosecution efforts to preserve that narrative, or at least to marginalize any who doubt that narrative as "conspiracy theory nutcases."

Given how it usually takes several shots to ensure the targeted person is dead, really dead, and given how important it was to them this time in particular to make sure Trump was really, really publicly dead then and there, and given that even brain challenged DEI hires wouldn't trust a single, mind controlled, young man to guarantee the perfect exploding head shot they so much wanted ... I can NOT imagine that they would have, for the first time, broken their usual modus operandi, and actually gone with just one "lone nut" shooter.

In particular, given the rise in the use of clones, doubles and other actors to stand in for major public figures, it would have been even more important now than ever to ensure that all those cell phone and TV cameras you speak of recorded Trump's head exploding or similar undeniable and immediate evidence of certain death. If there was any chance that a possibly still living Trump could be dragged off stage to a hospital, then Trump's people might claim that Trump survived and bring forth a double to continue. It was the public persona of Trump that had to die, then and there, beyond all doubt, not Trump's biological body. So it was more important than ever that a reliable sniper took the initial shots, to ensure a successful kill shot in full public view.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Multiple shooters would be much too messy. Too many LEOs to control (or silence).

That was never a show stopper problem before.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
If a pro-shooter was discovered all cover is blown (conspiracy). Plus, members of the public are armed with cellphones. The chance of being observed is much too high. Chance of escaping without detection is almost non-existent.

And not a problem now. It's been almost a month now and the only "evidence" we have of a second shooter, from beneath the eaves, is by indirect implication ... that's the best place we've identified so far that fits the recorded sounds, trajectories and possible hiding places.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Multiple shooters are also what people would expect: triangulation of crossfire. But this is a known calling card of deep state involvement. Multiple shots from multiple locations would effectively prove a conspiracy. They have to stay as far away from that as possible.

As far away from Dallas '63, in other words.

More often, when you get a person or institution cornered, and they are down to their last, critical, play, they are more likely to revert to almost exactly the same play that has been most successful for them in the past.

Or at the very least, you certainly aren't going to convince me of your "single shooter, no other shooter" case by claiming to be certain for the first time, they wouldn't rerun what had worked best in the past for just such operations.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
That was a total sh!tshow (for the alphabets) ... One dark blemish after another.

In your mind and my mind, perhaps yes. But the Deep State agents are even more successfully embedded in our institutions now than they were back then. That a third of us distrust them, another third do trust them, and the remaining third can't spell "C I A" ... this suits their never ending agenda to sow confusion and dissension in the masses just fine.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
And it would make no strategic sense.

This has to be a single shooter, unattached to any government agency.
And lay these foundations early. Establish identity of the shooter within 24 hours.

...

Everyone and their dog has a cellphone these days. Exploit this by opening up AGR for people to freely walk around in. Technically they're trespassing (don't have tickets to the rally) but their presence exposes the shooter to both eye-witnesses and photography.

Absolutely -- the primary narrative was, yet again, the "lone shooter nutcase", The Patsy. We all absolutely agree on that.

But, but ... since when has the "initial primary publicly pushed narrative" been what actually happened?

Like ... since never that I can recall. When those F-tards tell me, loud and clear and repeatedly and immediately after such an "Operation" goes down, that the sky is blue ... well ... I don't know what color the sky really is ... but I immediately know the one color it is almost certainly NOT.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Because no evidence will ever surface that ties 'them' to this operation.

That's the FBI's job ... has been one of their key jobs for about a century now ... confiscate evidence and obfuscate investigations. When crunch time comes, and this is crunch time for the Deep State, you go with what's worked for your entire career and for your parent's entire career ... in this case, that means once again (as you document) push the "lone shooter" narrative and (as you deny, quite unpersuasively to me) rely on the FBI to sweep reality under the rug, while relying on professionals to get the actual job done.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
Or at the very least, you certainly aren't going to convince me of your "single shooter, no other shooter" case by claiming to be certain for the first time, they wouldn't rerun what had worked best in the past for just such operations.

Neither of us are on the inside, so neither of us really has a clue about the operational workings of clandestine special ops, and the complex history thereof. That's because they're clandestine, classified, off the books. All we're really doing here is shooting the breeze, airing guesses and hunches over the coffee table.

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
But, but ... since when has the "initial primary publicly pushed narrative" been what actually happened?

Rarely, if ever. The popular narrative, I guess, is that Crooks was a lone shooter and that's the end of the story. I believe he was a lone shooter, but his strings were being pulled behind the curtain. I personally believe this was a LIHOP operation (Let it Happen on Purpose), with ancillary Deep State support, as described.

And no, I do not expect to convince you, but I wasn't trying to. I was merely painting a picture, a possible scenario. It's one that lines up with both the evidence and the way my 'conspiracy brain' works. Yours works differently and that's absolutely fine. You're not going to convince me either.

I guess we agree to disagree then. But I'll continue to monitor this thread, and any new evidence as it crops up. I do quite expect to revise my hypothesis in the future, but honestly, I don't anticipate it will change that much.

[SilentFeathers]

I'm pretty sure Crooks was the only shooter (In my minds eye)

I think if there were suppose to be two shooters, something went wrong with the mission. Perhaps Crooks went off script and didn't follow directions correctly, got exposed to soon by too many LE not in the know, and compromised the 2nd shooters timing and position etc. They probably just let Crooks fire instead of instantly killing him once so many noticed him, hoping he would get lucky and kill Trump.

They never got to use the ban all AR-15 assault rifles and other related guns agenda, they never got to use the explosives in the van and Iranian connection, and they never got to use the video's and photos of Trumps head exploding from a bullet wound. All of these things were obviously suppose to be played out to the fullest IMO.

A million different things could of happened several different ways and we'll never know what actually happened. I am pretty certain in my own mind though that if there were 2 shooters actually firing at Trump, he wouldn't of left that rally alive.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
You're not going to convince me either.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
I do quite expect to revise my hypothesis in the future, but honestly, I don't anticipate it will change that much.

My preferred hypothesis has changed a few times already ... so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised if it changes again .

[SilentFeathers]

Even after Trump was almost recently killed due to Secret Service's blatant failures, they don't seem to be protecting him any better.

https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/

EXCLUSIVE and BREAKING: During a Donald Trump visit to North Carolina yesterday, a woman Secret Service special agent abandoned her post to breastfeed with no permission/warning to the event site agent, according to three sources in the Secret Service community.

Shortly before Trump's motorcade arrival -- I'm told five minutes beforehand -- the site agent was getting ready for the arrival. (The site agent is the person in charge of the entire event's security.)

The site agent went to do one final sweep of the walking route and found the agent breast-feeding her child in a room that is supposed to be set aside for important Secret Service official work, i.e. a potential emergency related to the president.

A working agent on duty cannot bring a child to a protective assignment. The woman was out of the Atlanta Field Office.

The woman agent was in the room with two other family members.

The agent and her family members bypassed the Uniformed Division checkpoint and were escorted by an unpinned event staff into the room to breastfeed, the sources said. Unpinned means they have not been cleared by the Secret Service to be there.

When contacted about the incident, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the incident did not have an impact on the event. and it's under review.

"All employees of the U.S. Secret Service are held to the highest standards," he said. "While there was no impact to the North Carolina event, the specifics of this incident are being examined. Given this is a personnel matter, we are not in a position to comment further."

[T Smith]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
Even after Trump was almost recently killed due to Secret Service's blatant failures, they don't seem to be protecting him any better.

https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/

EXCLUSIVE and BREAKING: During a Donald Trump visit to North Carolina yesterday, a woman Secret Service special agent abandoned her post to breastfeed with no permission/warning to the event site agent, according to three sources in the Secret Service community.

Shortly before Trump's motorcade arrival -- I'm told five minutes beforehand -- the site agent was getting ready for the arrival. (The site agent is the person in charge of the entire event's security.)

The site agent went to do one final sweep of the walking route and found the agent breast-feeding her child in a room that is supposed to be set aside for important Secret Service official work, i.e. a potential emergency related to the president.

A working agent on duty cannot bring a child to a protective assignment. The woman was out of the Atlanta Field Office.

The woman agent was in the room with two other family members.

The agent and her family members bypassed the Uniformed Division checkpoint and were escorted by an unpinned event staff into the room to breastfeed, the sources said. Unpinned means they have not been cleared by the Secret Service to be there.

When contacted about the incident, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the incident did not have an impact on the event. and it's under review.

"All employees of the U.S. Secret Service are held to the highest standards," he said. "While there was no impact to the North Carolina event, the specifics of this incident are being examined. Given this is a personnel matter, we are not in a position to comment further."

I'm curious how something like this gets reported. If I am reading this story right, the site-agent caught one of their own out of protocol, away from her post and breast-feeding her child? This seems almost unbelievable, if not surreal. I wouldn't expect this degree of incompetence from employees at a fast food restaurant. But if it really happened, what happens next after the site agent in charge discovers this breech? I'm assuming the SS agent is reprimanded, relieved of duty, or fired, but how does the incident get leaked? With all the hot water the SS is in these days, it seems like they would put a lid on an incident like this and button it up air tight to avoid the embarrassing scrutiny. Or is this kind of information a false story leaked deliberately to prepare the public for "another incident?"

Sometimes it seems like the information itself is part of the psyop.

in any case, if I were Donald Trump I would be beefing up my own private security.

[ThePythonicCow]

The following video lays out the movements of Crooks, getting up on the roof of a more northern AGR building, then running across the roofs to the roof of Bldg #6, the southern most AGR building closest to Trump's podium, where Crooks would shoot, and die.

At the same time, Beaver County sniper Greg Nicol, reported (from his counter-sniper position in the second story of the taller AGR building just northwest of Bldg #6) that he saw Crooks walking on the ground north along the west side of the AGR buildings. After Greg would lose sight of Crooks, Crooks would then climb up onto a northern AGR roof and run south across the roofs of other AGR buildings south to his final shooting (and dying) location on the roof of the southern AGR Bldg #6.

At the same time, after he reported seeing Crooks walking north along the ground, Greg Nicol then REPORTED that he left his post to look for Crooks outside on the ground, HOWEVER Greg is NOT seen outside until a couple minutes AFTER the shooting, when Greg casually leaves the main, east-side, door of Bldg #6, and looks about to see what officers are where on the ground.

This means that Greg Nicol, a professional sniper, was apparently alone inside Bldg #6, perhaps just below Crooks on the roof, at the time of the shooting.

That's just who (a sniper) you'd want, where you'd want him (alone inside Bldg #6, just below Crooks on the roof), when you'd want him there (just as Crooks was crawling on the roof into position), if you wanted a professional sniper to take the first shots at Trump. The first shots are the most important ones, the ones most likely to hit their mark, before Trump could get down and be covered.

Greg Nicol would be the "second" shooter (actually, the "first" shooter), a trained sniper, who would begin the shooting when he heard Crooks take a position on the roof above him. Greg would get off the first three (more muffled, as if coming from inside a building rather than from on the roof, all as I documented in earlier posts above) shots from inside Bldg #6, followed by the rapid "spray and pray" five rounds from Crooks' AR-15 on the roof of Bldg #6.

Greg Nicol is now my candidate for the sniper whom the Deep State thought would kill Trump, but who instead made a "better deal" with Trump, to shoot three shots that missed, to live, to let Trump live, and to signal Trump and his close protection agents to get down and covered, thus protecting Trump from whatever immediately following shots the patsy Crooks on the roof would shoot.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=P7SFyHoS7Ik