Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Spud on July 22, 2024, 08:28:13 PM
-
Some are for sure but many are not, and they are putting up their version of events - not trying to find out what happened - in order to make money from it.
Yes indeed. To avoid trying to discuss this alongside the news about Biden, I thought we could have a separate thread. A lot of people think that for the secret service to allow it to happen, while being aware of a person with a gun on a nearby roof, is extremely suspicious. They want to know if there was another shooter, and they want evidence to eliminate that possibility, such as how many spent cases were found near the body of Crooks, indicating how many of the shots we hear on recordings were fired by him. How many shots were fired at him by snipers. Was it just the one which we know hit his forehead, or were there more?
-
Yes indeed. To avoid trying to discuss this alongside the news about Biden, I thought we could have a separate thread. A lot of people think that for the secret service to allow it to happen, while being aware of a person with a gun on a nearby roof, is extremely suspicious. They want to know if there was another shooter, and they want evidence to eliminate that possibility, such as how many spent cases were found near the body of Crooks, indicating how many of the shots we hear on recordings were fired by him. How many shots were fired at him by snipers. Was it just the one which we know hit his forehead, or were there more?
There is lots we don't know but speculating and filling the gaps is the problem. Such speculation is fuelled by people who make money on YouTube etc
Clearly the Secret Service protection failed but making the jump to say that that was deliberate is speculation with no supporting evidence. There should be a proper investigation to understand what happened but unqualified people trying to analyse events who have an agenda in many cases largely isn't helpful in regard to finding out the truth.
It is the modern way. A lot of people don't trust governments or the media (especially in the US), and there are on occasions reasons for that, but to then jump to there being dark forces organising everything behind the scenes is the stuff of conspiracy theories.
-
Before proceeding any further Spud, please read this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202005/everything-you-wanted-know-about-conspiracy-theories
If you haven't time for the whole thing, just read this:
I like to say that the term “conspiracy theorist” is something of a misnomer, because most people who believe in conspiracy theories aren’t theorizing. There’s coming from a place of mistrust, looking for answers, and finding them when they fall “down the rabbit hole” looking for explanations that differ from official accounts. In that sense, “conspiracy theorists” are really “conspiracy theists,” stumbling upon narratives that they find appealing that are boosted through confirmation bias.
-
Who shot the former US president?
Thomas Matthew Crooks
There is some question over the response of the security on the day, but I think the most likely cause is incompetence followed by (at a distant second) individuals in the service not being that enthusiastic about a second term for Tr*mp.
-
There is lots we don't know but speculating and filling the gaps is the problem. Such speculation is fuelled by people who make money on YouTube etc
Yes and I'm seeing a range of views about what happened, which annoyingly, conflict and make it very confusing. For example, Peak Prosperity showed crooks at the second the first shot was fired, and his shoulder doesn't move at all, even though the rifle has a significant kick.
But then when you look at where the people who were hit were located, they all seem to line up with Crooks, so that points to him being the shooter.
I find the MSM very biased. Readers are assumed to be anti Trump and pro Biden, anti Russia, pro evolution, and other things that I don't like to mention but a lot of people don't have those views or beliefs and independent journalism fills that vacuum. If people make a bit of money out of it, isn't that just the same as MSM? Obviously reader discretion is needed with both MSM and independent, to sift out facts from opinion.
-
MSM, by and large, is MSM for a reason.
-
Yes and I'm seeing a range of views about what happened, which annoyingly, conflict and make it very confusing. For example, Peak Prosperity showed crooks at the second the first shot was fired, and his shoulder doesn't move at all, even though the rifle has a significant kick.
But then when you look at where the people who were hit were located, they all seem to line up with Crooks, so that points to him being the shooter.
I find the MSM very biased. Readers are assumed to be anti Trump and pro Biden, anti Russia, pro evolution, and other things that I don't like to mention but a lot of people don't have those views or beliefs and independent journalism fills that vacuum. If people make a bit of money out of it, isn't that just the same as MSM? Obviously reader discretion is needed with both MSM and independent, to sift out facts from opinion.
You are always going to see a range of views and it is sensible to not take any source as 100% accurate and to make a judgement about the source. Generally though the MSM has better resources to experts etc than some amateur investigator on YouTube or the like. (Not sure what 'pro evolution' has got to do with their ability to present the facts around this assassination attempt by the way). I haven't seen film of Crooks firing - can you post a link of that? This YouTube film is interesting and worth a watch if you are looking for balance in your analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRKpMxtW6A&ab_channel=jeffostroff (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRKpMxtW6A&ab_channel=jeffostroff)
-
I haven't seen film of Crooks firing - can you post a link of that?
Sure, it's around the 23 minute mark here (https://youtu.be/03AxTE7R5Cg?si=ewYt0Y93_IQuVvqS)
He adds that the recording could have been tampered with.
If you play it at quarter speed you can see he doesn't move at all.
-
Sure, it's around the 23 minute mark here (https://youtu.be/03AxTE7R5Cg?si=ewYt0Y93_IQuVvqS)
He adds that the recording could have been tampered with.
If you play it at quarter speed you can see he doesn't move at all.
Thanks.
-
Thanks.
Hi, I've got some more data.
There is a video made close to the American Glass building on which Crooks (if that is who it was - some think it was someone else) was found dead.
Trump can be heard speaking in the background. The guy filming became aware that something was up, and several seconds before the first loud shots were fired you can hear muffled shots being fired, one of which coincides exactly with a bullet passing visibly from right to left across the screen, if you slow it down to 0.25x playback speed. This bullet goes in the direction of Crooks, from the direction of the counter-snipers. Trump continues speaking for a few more seconds...
You can hear a few other similar suppressed shots being fired, before the first loud shot hits Trump. Altogether perhaps about a dozen, including ones that are heard during and after the loud shots.
John Cullen, who I think first noticed these shots, has done a lot of ballistics analysis on the video evidence that is in the public domain.
One thing he has spotted is that there appear to have been two shots fired simultaneously, one of which passes down the top aisle of the bleacher behind and to the left of Trump (his left), causing everyone in that aisle to flinch, and one person to fall over, and then hitting the railing. The trajectory of this bullet passes through the two counter-snipers on the roof of the left-hand building behind Trump (looking from in front of Trump). Obviously the snipers were facing the other way, so did not fire this shot - it must have been aimed at them from beyond where there is a wood.
So far then we have shots being fired from one or more suppressed rifles, which incidentally must have been subsonic because they lack a 'crack' sound. Also two shots fired at the same time from different locations: one directed at the snipers, the other hits Trump.
The other thing Cullen has noticed on the above video is rapid flashes coming from the window below where Crooks was lying. He believes the first three loud shots were fired from this window, not Crooks, based on the distance between the microphone near Trump and the rifle that fired the shot that hit him, as calculated from the 'crack-thump' heard on the audio. He assumes a speed of around 3000 feet per second for the bullet. The distance is exactly the same as that between Trump and the window in which the supposed muzzle flashes are seen, and about 30 feet less than the distance from Trump to Crooks on the roof.
What we can say is that there was a coordinated attack by at least two shooters in different locations, one possibly in the building below Crooks who hit Trump, and the other in the woods, who tried to take out a counter-sniper at the same instant.
Parts of Cullen's theory don't add up. One question is, was Crooks dead before the audible shooting started? For example was the subsonic bullet caught on camera from a counter-sniper? I'll try and find the original video so you can watch it; if not I'll link to it via a different YouTuber.
I've also seen several other bullets from video recordings.
-
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1818520141816385717
-
What we can say is that there was a coordinated attack by at least two shooters in different locations, one possibly in the building below Crooks who hit Trump, and the other in the woods, who tried to take out a counter-sniper at the same instant.
No we can't.
This is classic conspiracy stuff which crops up with every such incident. This will keep going for years and years sadly with more and more amateur analysis and attempts to fill gaps in our knowledge with conspiracy.
-
one of which coincides exactly with a bullet passing visibly from right to left across the screen, if you slow it down to 0.25x playback speed.
Nope. This is how we can tell bullshit is just bullshit. Bullets from rifles travel at something like 1000m/s. If the video has a frame rate of 60 frames per second, the bullet would be visible in a maximum of one or two frames.
-
Nope. This is how we can tell bullshit is just bullshit. Bullets from rifles travel at something like 1000m/s. If the video has a frame rate of 60 frames per second, the bullet would be visible in a maximum of one or two frames.
The bullet is travelling slower than the speed of sound, as it's from a suppressed rifle (no crack). The clip is slowed down to 1/10 speed, so that's 6 frames per second visible, and the bullet is visible in two frames.
-
Try viewing the original video at 0.25x playback speed. Suppressed shots started up to 18 seconds before the loud shots started.
4:37 first suppressed shot heard.
4:47 bullet passes across screen, suppressed shot heard. Trump continues speaking.
4:55 first three loud shots start. Trump stops speaking.
4:59 five more loud shots start.
5:04 flash at window and suppressed shot heard.
5:05 another flash at window.
Note that the same window is closed up until 5:02, then the camera pans down until 5:04, from which point it stays open.
https://youtu.be/28lxF9LONGk?si=_jgBxlCV6Tcd74xp
-
One more thing, Cullen did a podcast with a US sniper instructor, Clay someone. When the first suppressed shot sounded, this guy immediately said, "Oh, ****, I know that sound like I know my child's voice - suppressed sniper fire".
-
Try viewing the original video at 0.25x playback speed. Suppressed shots started up to 18 seconds before the loud shots started.
4:37 first suppressed shot heard.
4:47 bullet passes across screen, suppressed shot heard. Trump continues speaking.
4:55 first three loud shots start. Trump stops speaking.
4:59 five more loud shots start.
5:04 flash at window and suppressed shot heard.
5:05 another flash at window.
Note that the same window is closed up until 5:02, then the camera pans down until 5:04, from which point it stays open.
https://youtu.be/28lxF9LONGk?si=_jgBxlCV6Tcd74xp
Where's Badge Man?
-
Try viewing the original video at 0.25x playback speed. Suppressed shots started up to 18 seconds before the loud shots started.
4:37 first suppressed shot heard.
4:47 bullet passes across screen, suppressed shot heard. Trump continues speaking.
4:55 first three loud shots start. Trump stops speaking.
4:59 five more loud shots start.
5:04 flash at window and suppressed shot heard.
5:05 another flash at window.
Note that the same window is closed up until 5:02, then the camera pans down until 5:04, from which point it stays open.
-
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1818476290657468884
-
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1818476290657468884
Same old, same old.
-
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1818476290657468884
https://www.yahoo.com/news/second-shooter-conspiracy-theory-spread-220025498.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/second-shooter-conspiracy-theory-spread-220025498.html)
-
It's deja vu all over again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Allegations_of_multiple_gunmen
-
It's deja vu all over again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Allegations_of_multiple_gunmen
Yep, hence my comment about Badge Man.
-
Yep, hence my comment about Badge Man.
Didn't know what you meant by that at first. Just googled.
-
Didn't know what you meant by that at first. Just googled.
No problem. :)
-
The bullet is travelling slower than the speed of sound, as it's from a suppressed rifle (no crack). The clip is slowed down to 1/10 speed, so that's 6 frames per second visible, and the bullet is visible in two frames.
It doesn't matter what speed you view it at. It's the speed at which the video is taken that matters. If you want the bullet to appear on several frames, you need to speed up the frame rate.
Edit: I just checked your youtube video. It's only filmed at 30 frames per second. Also, the object, which is quite large, appears in three frames. That's one tenth of a second, in which time, even a slow bullet would travel about 30 metres. This object is much slower than that (at least if it's a bullet and therefore quite close).
-
It doesn't matter what speed you view it at. It's the speed at which the video is taken that matters. If you want the bullet to appear on several frames, you need to speed up the frame rate.
Edit: I just checked your youtube video. It's only filmed at 30 frames per second. Also, the object, which is quite large, appears in three frames. That's one tenth of a second, in which time, even a slow bullet would travel about 30 metres. This object is much slower than that (at least if it's a bullet and therefore quite close).
Thanks, how did you check the frame rate? If the object goes across the screen in one tenth of a second, and the distance it travels is 30m (a guess), it would be going about 300m/s, so not much slower than sound which agrees with the suppressed sound it makes.
But even if the distance was 15m the speed would still be faster than the slowest (according to Google) bullet , so I can't think what else it could be. Anyway, if suppressed shots were being fired before the loud volley we all hear, that must merit investigation?
-
Thanks, how did you check the frame rate?
If you access Youtube from a browser, it has the ability to go forwards or backwards one frame at a time. The relevant controls are the "," key and the "." key. I stopped the video at 4:16 and then hit "," until the time stamp changed to 4:15. Then I hit "." continuously (counting as I went long) until the time stamp was 4:17.
If the object goes across the screen in one tenth of a second, and the distance it travels is 30m (a guess), it would be going about 300m/s, so not much slower than sound which agrees with the suppressed sound it makes.
But even if the distance was 15m the speed would still be faster than the slowest (according to Google) bullet
It wouldn't be the slowest bullet. The slowest bullet e.g. a pistol round would not be accurate at the distances involved.
so I can't think what else it could be
Really? You can't think of an insect?
-
It wouldn't be the slowest bullet. The slowest bullet e.g. a pistol round would not be accurate at the distances involved.
Well, it wasn't accurate, was it? It missed!
-
Well, it wasn't accurate, was it? It missed!
By millimetres
For Spud's benefit, I've created a composite frame consisting of the second and third frames in which the object appears. You can use a measuring tool to measure the rough size of the object and the distance it travels between frames. Both versions of the object are about the same size which means it is not traveling towards or away from the camera. The distance between the two versions of the object is about 25 times the length of the object.
If this is a bullet, it is probably something like a maximum of 20 mm long. So that means, between the two frames, it has travelled 500mm or 0.5metres. There are 30 frames in a second, meaning the object would be travelling at 15 metres per second. That's far too slow to be a bullet.
It is not a bullet.
-
By millimetres
We don't know what the intended target was; it was heading in the direction of Crooks.
For Spud's benefit, I've created a composite frame consisting of the second and third frames in which the object appears. You can use a measuring tool to measure the rough size of the object and the distance it travels between frames. Both versions of the object are about the same size which means it is not traveling towards or away from the camera. The distance between the two versions of the object is about 25 times the length of the object.
If this is a bullet, it is probably something like a maximum of 20 mm long. So that means, between the two frames, it has travelled 500mm or 0.5metres. There are 30 frames in a second, meaning the object would be travelling at 15 metres per second. That's far too slow to be a bullet.
It is not a bullet.
Thanks Jeremy, good of you to go to the trouble to do that. I find it difficult to believe that the distance between the two positions is as small as 0.5m, but who knows.
-
We don't know what the intended target was; it was heading in the direction of Crooks. I appreciate your efforts, but there is no way it's as slow as 10mps. It could be longer in length and we don't know how far from the camera it is, and thus the distance travelled between the two frames. Based on being just about able to see it at normal speed (having first detected it at 0.25x), I'd estimate 100mps, twice the speed of a fast tennis serve (50mps).
How are you ruling out that it is an insect?
-
How are you ruling out that it is an insect?
Google says dragonflies are the fastest, at 15.6mps (35mph), and you can track a dragonfly when it passes by, unlike this object. Also, they have wings. And this is accompanied by a sound identified by sniper instructor Clay Martin as suppressed gunfire.
-
Google says dragonflies are the fastest, at 15.6mps (35mph), and you can track a dragonfly when it passes by, unlike this object. Also, they have wings. And this is accompanied by a sound identified by sniper instructor Clay Martin as suppressed gunfire.
The right hand one looks like it has wings to me. What do you mean by you can track a dragonfly? You don't know that the sound is associated with the object.
-
The right hand one looks like it has wings to me. What do you mean by you can track a dragonfly? You don't know that the sound is associated with the object.
I see some fuzz on the upper side in one frame, but the other two frames show no sign of wings. The sound is a frame or so behind when the object becomes visible, which is consistent with sound waves taking longer to reach the viewer.
-
We don't know what the intended target was; it was heading in the direction of Crooks.
SteveH was talking about the one that grazed Tr*mp's ear.
Thanks Jeremy, good of you to go to the trouble to do that. I find it difficult to believe that the distance between the two positions is as small as 0.5m, but who knows.
If you want the distance to be bigger, the objects have to be much larger than rifle bullets.
-
Google says dragonflies are the fastest, at 15.6mps (35mph), and you can track a dragonfly when it passes by, unlike this object.
If the object was dragonfly sized, then its speed is consistent with a fast flying dragonfly. The rough calculation I did above came up with 15 m/s.
Also, they have wings. And this is accompanied by a sound identified by sniper instructor Clay Martin as suppressed gunfire.
What noise does suppressed gunfire make and how does it differ from the noise a dragonfly makes.
The photographic evidence is incontrovertible. If the object is a bullet, it can only have been travelling at around 15 m/s. So it can't be a bullet.
-
I see some fuzz on the upper side in one frame, but the other two frames show no sign of wings. The sound is a frame or so behind when the object becomes visible, which is consistent with sound waves taking longer to reach the viewer.
Could be an unrelated noise. Could be a noise related to an insect.
-
If the object was dragonfly sized, then its speed is consistent with a fast flying dragonfly. The rough calculation I did above came up with 15 m/s.
Yes, and I am impressed that you figured out how to calculate that - it wouldn't have occurred to me.
-
There is footage of three other "bullets". One makes a hole in Trump's jacket as he raises his right arm. Another is seen flying past him and the bodyguards as they are leaving the podium. One more flies past the large American flag that had earlier managed to turn into the shape of an angel.
I'd also like your opinions on the first window to the right of the four chimneys on the side of the American Glass building, in the Dayve Steward video. Just before the loud shooting it has something like a red curtain across it, which then disappears after the shots. We subsequently see a white cord across the window, which also disappears. Then we see two flashes coming from it, within about a second (at 5:04). If you get time.
-
There is footage of three other "bullets". One makes a hole in Trump's jacket as he raises his right arm. Another is seen flying past him and the bodyguards as they are leaving the podium. One more flies past the large American flag that had earlier managed to turn into the shape of an angel.
I'd also like your opinions on the first window to the right of the four chimneys on the side of the American Glass building, in the Dayve Steward video. Just before the loud shooting it has something like a red curtain across it, which then disappears after the shots. We subsequently see a white cord across the window, which also disappears. Then we see two flashes coming from it, within about a second (at 5:04). If you get time.
The hole in Trump's jacket is a fold in the jacket of the SS agent.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-shooting-bullet-hole-chest-photo-239400193944 (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-shooting-bullet-hole-chest-photo-239400193944)
-
The hole in Trump's jacket is a fold in the jacket of the SS agent.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-shooting-bullet-hole-chest-photo-239400193944 (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-shooting-bullet-hole-chest-photo-239400193944)
Perhaps. Found what I was looking for:
https://x.com/TheodorouJ53690/status/1818885871950610615
(Projectile is in several frames, the two shown are before and after possibly passing through his jacket.)
-
Perhaps. Found what I was looking for:
https://x.com/TheodorouJ53690/status/1818885871950610615
(Projectile is in several frames, the two shown are before and after possibly passing through his jacket.)
Have you learned nothing from the previous few posts?
If a bullet hit Tr*mp's jacket, a video with him filling the frame like that would show the bullet at most in one frame.
Anyway, Tr*mp's jacket was not hit by a bullet, so the point is moot.
-
Have you learned nothing from the previous few posts?
If a bullet hit Tr*mp's jacket, a video with him filling the frame like that would show the bullet at most in one frame.
Anyway, Tr*mp's jacket was not hit by a bullet, so the point is moot.
But there are more videos being made public in which bullets, if that's what they are, are being spotted. They all show up in about three frames.
Here's an explanation why this is possible, notwithstanding your analysis:
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1821212559300497527/photo/1
If the smartphone camera shoots 8,000 frames per second and selects 30 frames that best represent what's happening (if I've understood the post in the link correctly), this could mean that the frames containing the bullets are selected from the particular slice of the 8,000 in which the bullet passes through, (eg, frames 2000-2500) then positioned uniformly across the 30, making it look as if they are travelling slowly.
They look like bullets, not bugs, and coincide with the sound of suppressed gunfire. This suggests that they are bullets.
-
But there are more videos being made public in which bullets, if that's what they are, are being spotted. They all show up in about three frames.
Here's an explanation why this is possible, notwithstanding your analysis:
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1821212559300497527/photo/1
If the smartphone camera shoots 8,000 frames per second
Seriously? You think a smartphone shoots 8,000 frames per second? Not a chance.
-
Perhaps. Found what I was looking for:
https://x.com/TheodorouJ53690/status/1818885871950610615
(Projectile is in several frames, the two shown are before and after possibly passing through his jacket.)
You said the bullet made a hole. Can't see one. What happened in the next frame or two - why does it stop there?
-
You said the bullet made a hole. Can't see one. What happened in the next frame or two - why does it stop there?
When I first saw the video and the photo I thought the bullet had made the hole. The bullet is significant with or without a hole, though.
Here's a more complete video which shows two more frames:
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1819030026203066826/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1819030026203066826¤tTweet=1819030026203066826¤tTweet=1819030026203066826¤tTweetUser=I_Am_JohnCullen¤tTweetUser=I_Am_JohnCullen¤tTweetUser=I_Am_JohnCullen&mode=profile
If it was a bullet, though, it would surely have hit someone behind him.
-
When I first saw the video and the photo I thought the bullet had made the hole. The bullet is significant with or without a hole, though.
Here's a more complete video which shows two more frames:
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1819030026203066826/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1819030026203066826¤tTweet=1819030026203066826¤tTweet=1819030026203066826¤tTweetUser=I_Am_JohnCullen¤tTweetUser=I_Am_JohnCullen¤tTweetUser=I_Am_JohnCullen&mode=profile
If it was a bullet, though, it would surely have hit someone behind him.
Link doesn't work.
There is no hole. Don't know it was a bullet.
-
Link doesn't work.
There is no hole. Don't know it was a bullet.
An earlier frame shows it pass the podium (2nd screenshot). It would have gone too high to hit people in the stands (1st screenshot).
-
Seriously? You think a smartphone shoots 8,000 frames per second? Not a chance.
I can't get my head around whether there's a difference between frame rate when recording and when playing it back. But I think there's a problem with your method of working out the speed by guessing the size of the object. It's pretty obviously a bullet, yet 15 m/s is slow enough to follow something with the eyes and this is impossible with the object. Perhaps this problem relates to downsampling, perhaps not.
-
Link doesn't work.
There is no hole. Don't know it was a bullet.
You can watch itat 45 seconds in in the link below, and see it travel from the podium to just above the wire behind him in 10 frames.
https://youtu.be/P3N6CV2owsY?si=8OUWcNtiVC_BDz7G
-
You can watch itat 45 seconds in in the link below, and see it travel from the podium to just above the wire behind him in 10 frames.
https://youtu.be/P3N6CV2owsY?si=8OUWcNtiVC_BDz7G
Thanks. So it came from the front? On a rising trajectory? Whatever it is.
-
Thanks. So it came from the front? On a rising trajectory? Whatever it is.
Indeed, it's very small and moves fast enough to be invisible. If it is easier with this projectile to measure it's approximate distance travelled per frame, and if we know the frame rate, we could calculate it's speed more accurately.
In the meantime, this needs explaining: when the first loud shot is heard, the man in white on the back row of the bleacher to Trump's rear-left falls down. I think he is one of the two critically injured. How can the bullet that hit Trump have also hit the man in white?
In the audio, three sounds are heard when played at 1/10th speed, suggesting two simultaneous shots are fired.
-
I can't get my head around whether there's a difference between frame rate when recording and when playing it back.
To record at 8,000 frames per second, you need highly specialised equipment. Believe me, no phone can record at that rate. for a start, your shutter speed equivalent needs to be at least as fast as 1/8000.
But I think there's a problem with your method of working out the speed by guessing the size of the object. It's pretty obviously a bullet, yet 15 m/s is slow enough to follow something with the eyes and this is impossible with the object. Perhaps this problem relates to downsampling, perhaps not.
It's pretty obviously not a bullet because, if it were, it would be travelling at only around 15 m/s.
Edit: my money is on an insect.
-
To record at 8,000 frames per second, you need highly specialised equipment. Believe me, no phone can record at that rate. for a start, your shutter speed equivalent needs to be at least as fast as 1/8000.
Yep, I read that the fastest a smart phone can capture is 240 frames per second.
These two pictures are of the third window from the right, to the right of the four chimneys, a few seconds after that projectile flies by. The first is at 4:49 (here (https://youtu.be/28lxF9LONGk?si=-RKayeb168xFEr2h)), the second at 4:55. Does this prove that someone was in this building and opened this window, seconds before the loud shots?
-
Yep, I read that the fastest a smart phone can capture is 240 frames per second.
These two pictures are of the third window from the right, to the right of the four chimneys, a few seconds after that projectile flies by. The first is at 4:49 (here (https://youtu.be/28lxF9LONGk?si=-RKayeb168xFEr2h)), the second at 4:55. Does this prove that someone was in this building and opened this window, seconds before the loud shots?
No idea. Not sure what those blurry images are supposed to be.
-
Indeed, it's very small and moves fast enough to be invisible. If it is easier with this projectile to measure it's approximate distance travelled per frame, and if we know the frame rate, we could calculate it's speed more accurately.
In the meantime, this needs explaining: when the first loud shot is heard, the man in white on the back row of the bleacher to Trump's rear-left falls down. I think he is one of the two critically injured. How can the bullet that hit Trump have also hit the man in white?
In the audio, three sounds are heard when played at 1/10th speed, suggesting two simultaneous shots are fired.
Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7PdhHC2zr0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7PdhHC2zr0)
You think he is one of the victims? Best be sure before trying to base any conspiracy theory.
-
Yep, I read that the fastest a smart phone can capture is 240 frames per second.
These two pictures are of the third window from the right, to the right of the four chimneys, a few seconds after that projectile flies by. The first is at 4:49 (here (https://youtu.be/28lxF9LONGk?si=-RKayeb168xFEr2h)), the second at 4:55. Does this prove that someone was in this building and opened this window, seconds before the loud shots?
Some blurry images prove nothing.
-
Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7PdhHC2zr0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7PdhHC2zr0)
You think he is one of the victims? Best be sure before trying to base any conspiracy theory.
Ok, agreed, he is not one of the victims, but he does fall, and the other people on the back row all flinch at the same time (do the people further forward flinch?)
Also when the bullet hits the railing, the puff of smoke goes out sideways.
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1824075140331639122
shows it in slow motion.
Ps the guy in your link has done a good video recently in which he looks at footage from the bodycam of one of the police.
-
Ok, agreed, he is not one of the victims, but he does fall, and the other people on the back row all flinch at the same time (do the people further forward flinch?)
Also when the bullet hits the railing, the puff of smoke goes out sideways.
https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullen/status/1824075140331639122
shows it in slow motion.
Ps the guy in your link has done a good video recently in which he looks at footage from the bodycam of one of the police.
Flinch, yes. People all around the area flinched and ducked. The person you mentioned ducked and possibly fell or possibly hit the ground.
I've seen footage of the dust or whatever from the railing. So what it went sideways? I don't find John Cullen convincing. He did an interview with someone on Youtube showing clips of lots of people on the back row of the bleacher where the person was hit suggesting they all showed signs of being hit/clipped - indicating the shot travelled along the back row of the bleacher. He gave no evidence that they were hit and didn't seem to consider that they were reacting to the sound of the shot(s) instead.
Yes, have seen the bodycam video.
His recent ones on the story of the ladders and the clips of Crooks running on the roof are excellent. Includes some footage of the water tower around the time of the shooting and also shows Police cars parked up in that area. No shooter to be seen there.
-
Flinch, yes. People all around the area flinched and ducked. The person you mentioned ducked and possibly fell or possibly hit the ground.
I've seen footage of the dust or whatever from the railing. So what it went sideways? I don't find John Cullen convincing. He did an interview with someone on Youtube showing clips of lots of people on the back row of the bleacher where the person was hit suggesting they all showed signs of being hit/clipped - indicating the shot travelled along the back row of the bleacher. He gave no evidence that they were hit and didn't seem to consider that they were reacting to the sound of the shot(s) instead.
Yes, have seen the bodycam video.
His recent ones on the story of the ladders and the clips of Crooks running on the roof are excellent. Includes some footage of the water tower around the time of the shooting and also shows Police cars parked up in that area. No shooter to be seen there.
He also said the snipers were taking fire, which has been claimed by someone as 'direct from the source'. A little further on from 15:30 in the video you linked, you can see that the sniper ducks just before the first shot rings out (edit: this might be just after the first shot). A few seconds later he and his mate re-align their rifles towards the trees, and this was also mentioned by one lady commentator in some other footage.
So Cullen does have a point about a possible shot fired from the trees.
I don't see any evidence of someone on the water tower either.
One eye witness, who mentions the water tower, also said someone she spoke to had been sent photos of two dead people - not Crooks - on his phone.
So there's other information that needs explaining, whether it indicates only one or more than one shooter.
Yes the footage of Crooks running on the roof certainly shows how it would have been difficult to stop him. Would be interesting to know why they didn't shoot him before he fired.
The photos of the window are significant, if you understand that they show the same window which was directly in line with Trump and Crooks, and noting the time at which it suddenly looked different, seconds before the shots rang out.
-
He also said the snipers were taking fire, which has been claimed by someone as 'direct from the source'. A little further on from 15:30 in the video you linked, you can see that the sniper ducks just before the first shot rings out. A few seconds later he and his mate re-align their rifles towards the trees, and this was also mentioned by one lady commentator in some other footage.
So Cullen does have a point about a possible shot fired from the trees.
I don't see any evidence of someone on the water tower either.
One eye witness, who mentions the water tower, also said someone she spoke to had been sent photos of two dead people - not Crooks - on his phone.
So there's other information that needs explaining, whether it indicates only one or more than one shooter.
Yes the footage of Crooks running on the roof certainly shows how it would have been difficult to stop him. Would be interesting to know why they didn't shoot him before he fired.
The photos of the window are significant, if you understand that they show the same window which was directly in line with Trump and Crooks, and noting the time at which it suddenly looked different, seconds before the shots rang out.
Have seen him argue about the snipers taking shots and am not convinced. They move, they react. No evidence of shots aimed at them. Someone claimed it came direct from the source but any reason to believe that 'someone'?
Someone sent photos - by someone. Lots of someones and unsupported claims here, as ever with conspiracy theories.
The snipers who shot Crooks were facing the other way when he fired, and the ones facing the right way couldn't see him because of the trees. Who were you thinking would shoot him?
Blurry images of windows that look 'different' - great evidence.
People, including you it seems, are trying too hard to find things to question in my view.
-
Have seen him argue about the snipers taking shots and am not convinced. They move, they react. No evidence of shots aimed at them. Someone claimed it came direct from the source but any reason to believe that 'someone'?
Someone sent photos - by someone. Lots of someones and unsupported claims here, as ever with conspiracy theories.
The snipers who shot Crooks were facing the other way when he fired, and the ones facing the right way couldn't see him because of the trees. Who were you thinking would shoot him?
Blurry images of windows that look 'different' - great evidence.
People, including you it seems, are trying too hard to find things to question in my view.
The sound on one video of the snipers seems to be slightly behind the picture, giving the impression that one of them ducked before the shots started. In the other video, which seems to be better quality, he clearly ducks in reaction to the first shot.
The flashes in the window near to the vent stacks, which Cullen thought were muzzle flashes, are almost certainly reflections of headlights from a vehicle. You can see similar flashes in the other windows and at one point there are two of them side by side, looking like headlights.
Also, it looks as if the big crane might have been blocking the view of Trump from that window. Any bullets may also have to have gone through the wire fence.
I'm still curious as to why the window suddenly looked different just before the shots started, and also why Crooks' body was lying some way from the ridge of the roof. But I'm now much more inclined to believe the shooter was Crooks and only him.
-
The sound on one video of the snipers seems to be slightly behind the picture, giving the impression that one of them ducked before the shots started. In the other video, which seems to be better quality, he clearly ducks in reaction to the first shot.
The flashes in the window near to the vent stacks, which Cullen thought were muzzle flashes, are almost certainly reflections of headlights from a vehicle. You can see similar flashes in the other windows and at one point there are two of them side by side, looking like headlights.
Also, it looks as if the big crane might have been blocking the view of Trump from that window. Any bullets may also have to have gone through the wire fence.
I'm still curious as to why the window suddenly looked different just before the shots started, and also why Crooks' body was lying some way from the ridge of the roof. But I'm now much more inclined to believe the shooter was Crooks and only him.
I think that is the most likely explanation by far and glad you aren't going down the rabbit hole.
-
Latest Youtube video from jeffostrof has some interesting stuff, looking at an initial congressional report. The report says that Crooks was hit twice, once by a local SWAT officer then by one of the southern sniper team. Mentions the claims about the windows. Also highlights that the USSC didn't collect the radios which would have meant that they would have heard the Police Officers saying there was someone on the roof. Also criticism of the FBI releasing the crime scene after 3 days and washing away potential forensic evidence. And more ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af_K1oGfljM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af_K1oGfljM)
-
The report says that Crooks was hit twice, once by a local SWAT officer
And video evidence of this in his latest video.
-
Also criticism of the FBI releasing the crime scene after 3 days and washing away potential forensic evidence. And more ....
Why? The perpetrator is dead. It's not like there's going to be a trial.
-
Why? The perpetrator is dead. It's not like there's going to be a trial.
Don't know. This was in the report but the creator of the Youtube channel also questions why this is a problem and if it is unusual. All to do with the conspiracy theories swirling around the event I guess. Presumably the report author thought there were questions to be answered.
-
More projectiles seen flying near Trump before and after the shooting:
https://x.com/50kft_News/status/1820522806351892621
-
More projectiles seen flying near Trump before and after the shooting:
https://x.com/50kft_News/status/1820522806351892621
Lots of bad shots there that day. Where did these "projectiles" end up?
-
Lots of bad shots there that day. Where did these "projectiles" end up?
These were subsonic suppressed shots, though.
Interestingly, the same swat officer who fired the ninth shot also fired the tenth that killed Crooks. It's caught on the bodycam of the officer who ran towards the action from a building due South of the area behind Trump. The Swat officer fired the last shot, not a secret service sniper. He is seen to take aim, then raise his arm after firing.
-
These were subsonic suppressed shots, though.
Interestingly, the same swat officer who fired the ninth shot also fired the tenth that killed Crooks. It's caught on the bodycam of the officer who ran towards the action from a building due South of the area behind Trump. The Swat officer fired the last shot, not a secret service sniper. He is seen to take aim, then raise his arm after firing.
Nope, not according to the initial report. The SWAT guy was looking through his scope but didn't fire the last shot, the snipper did. He raised his arm to celebrate the hit that he saw through his scope. Why do you say it was the SWAT guy?
What subsonic suppressed shots are you referring to?
-
Nope, not according to the initial report. The SWAT guy was looking through his scope but didn't fire the last shot, the snipper did. He raised his arm to celebrate the hit that he saw through his scope.
That definitely makes sense, yes.
-
What subsonic suppressed shots are you referring to?
The projectiles in message 68, as well as the one that passed Trump's right arm, and the one in Dave Stewart's vid.
-
The projectiles in message 68, as well as the one that passed Trump's right arm, and the one in Dave Stewart's vid.
Not identified as subsonic projectiles.
-
Not identified as subsonic projectiles.
Drones, apparently!
https://youtu.be/AYuTVJgx0Qw?si=eRTUGf4fXE4UkM7X
-
Drones, apparently!
https://youtu.be/AYuTVJgx0Qw?si=eRTUGf4fXE4UkM7X
Bonkers.
-
Bonkers.
I've never seen a bonker but I have seen flies, wasps and mosquitos.
-
Bonkers.
Oh, I thought that video was very convincing, in showing that they are drones, I mean. Do you still think they are insects?
-
Oh, I thought that video was very convincing, in showing that they are drones, I mean. Do you still think they are insects?
Most likely, yes.
-
I've seen footage of the dust or whatever from the railing. So what it went sideways? I don't find John Cullen convincing. He did an interview with someone on Youtube showing clips of lots of people on the back row of the bleacher where the person was hit suggesting they all showed signs of being hit/clipped - indicating the shot travelled along the back row of the bleacher. He gave no evidence that they were hit and didn't seem to consider that they were reacting to the sound of the shot(s) instead.
He's still investigating the puff of smoke that went sideways when the railing was hit. If the bullet was coming from Crooks' direction the puff wouldn't have gone sideways. He is now saying the line joining Crooks to Trump's ear doesn't pass through the point on the railing that was hit when you hear the first shot. A bit weird.
-
He's still investigating the puff of smoke that went sideways when the railing was hit. If the bullet was coming from Crooks' direction the puff wouldn't have gone sideways. He is now saying the line joining Crooks to Trump's ear doesn't pass through the point on the railing that was hit when you hear the first shot. A bit weird.
Why wouldn't it go sideways?
-
Why wouldn't it go sideways?
Nothing goes sideways in such a cunning plan
-
Why wouldn't it go sideways?
Because there’s no such thing as wind.
-
No wind, no flying insects, no human error. A strange world some people inhabit.
-
No wind, no flying insects, no human error. A strange world some people inhabit.
The wind was blowing the other way, if I'm not mistaken.
There is another video showing the bullet hitting the railing, but from a slightly different angle. It could be interpreted as showing that the puff goes backwards rather than sideways.
However, it does look from the original video as though the bullet hits the back railing (not the side one) at a spot which looks as though it is behind the man standing at the top back corner. So the bullet would have to have hit him if it was coming from Crooks.
There is a ricochet which is seen in the attached screenshot, which is followed by the puff going to the right.
-
The wind was blowing the other way, if I'm not mistaken.
There is another video showing the bullet hitting the railing, but from a slightly different angle. It could be interpreted as showing that the puff goes backwards rather than sideways.
However, it does look from the original video as though the bullet hits the back railing (not the side one) at a spot which looks as though it is behind the man standing at the top back corner. So the bullet would have to have hit him if it was coming from Crooks.
There is a ricochet which is seen in the attached screenshot, which is followed by the puff going to the right.
It did hit him didn't it?
Have you watched this analysis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2lVIJc000&t=5s&ab_channel=AzgetIndustries (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2lVIJc000&t=5s&ab_channel=AzgetIndustries)
-
Have you watched this analysis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2lVIJc000&t=5s&ab_channel=AzgetIndustries (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2lVIJc000&t=5s&ab_channel=AzgetIndustries)
Well, that's the end of this thread.
-
It did hit him didn't it?
Have you watched this analysis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2lVIJc000&t=5s&ab_channel=AzgetIndustries (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2lVIJc000&t=5s&ab_channel=AzgetIndustries)
It missed the person in the back corner who was holding the railing, wearing a dark short-sleeved shirt and a red cap. The two that were injured (https://youtu.be/calMa2EZyNc?si=3NkvmhW_zK4pF3p3)were near him.
Yes I've seen that before, but the placement of the people doesn't look accurate.
-
It missed the person in the back corner who was holding the railing, wearing a dark short-sleeved shirt and a red cap. The two that were injured (https://youtu.be/calMa2EZyNc?si=3NkvmhW_zK4pF3p3)were near him.
Yes I've seen that before, but the placement of the people doesn't look accurate.
Try this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihDIQEbUAPI&ab_channel=MikeBell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihDIQEbUAPI&ab_channel=MikeBell)
-
Try this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihDIQEbUAPI&ab_channel=MikeBell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihDIQEbUAPI&ab_channel=MikeBell)
Thanks - those are both helpful videos.
But at 5:51 Bell's line connecting shooter to Trump's ear (first shot) doesn't line up with where the railing is hit. Plus he doesn't show the guy in the black shirt and red cap, who is in front of the corner of the railing (see 10:30 in Bell's video and attached screenshot below)
According to Cullen the chap shown in the screenshot who wasn't hit is evidence that the bullet that hit the railing had to come from a different trajectory. Perhaps this will be demonstrated to be wrong though.
-
Perhaps this will be demonstrated to be wrong though.
Perhaps you should just leave it to the US authorities to investigate as they see fit and not indulge in speculation.
-
Thanks - those are both helpful videos.
But at 5:51 Bell's line connecting shooter to Trump's ear (first shot) doesn't line up with where the railing is hit. Plus he doesn't show the guy in the black shirt and red cap, who is in front of the corner of the railing (see 10:30 in Bell's video and attached screenshot below)
According to Cullen the chap shown in the screenshot who wasn't hit is evidence that the bullet that hit the railing had to come from a different trajectory. Perhaps this will be demonstrated to be wrong though.
It just shows that there are alternative 'studies' by amateurs that disagree. None should be taken as 'the truth' and could all be wrong as you say. It is what follows from those studies which can be the problem - asserting it is obvious that there was a second gun man, a conspiracy to kill Trump, USSS involvement etc etc
-
the placement of the people doesn't look accurate.
How would you know?
-
How would you know?
She put one of the victims where there was someone who didn't get shot.
-
She put one of the victims where there was someone who didn't get shot.
That’s just restating your claim. How do you know?
-
That’s just restating your claim. How do you know?
If you look at her model, she places one of the victims in the back righthand corner of the stand. This is the position of the bloke with the black shirt and red cap. It was two others who were carried out after the shooting, one wearing a US flag and the other a white shirt, so I'm assuming the guy in the red cap wasn't injured.
-
If you look at her model, she places one of the victims in the back righthand corner of the stand. This is the position of the bloke with the black shirt and red cap. It was two others who were carried out after the shooting, one wearing a US flag and the other a white shirt, so I'm assuming the guy in the red cap wasn't injured.
Again you are just making assertions. How do you know you are right and she is wrong? What say you to the other video which is even more conclusive?
-
Again you are just making assertions. How do you know you are right and she is wrong? What say you to the other video which is even more conclusive?
This guy, who is on video walking around afterwards, is standing in front of where the bullet hit the railing. A small bit of blue can be seen in front of his right arm which I'm assuming is the flag David Dutch had around him.
The trajectory of the bullet strike on the railing looks as though it would have passed either through him or behind him.
-
This guy, who is on video walking around afterwards, is standing in front of where the bullet hit the railing. A small bit of blue can be seen in front of his right arm which I'm assuming is the flag David Dutch had around him.
The trajectory of the bullet strike on the railing looks as though it would have passed either through him or behind him.
Surely not based on the image you posted above and the second analysis Youtube clip I posted.
-
Surely not based on the image you posted above and the second analysis Youtube clip I posted.
What I meant was that if the bullet came from Crooks and hit first Trump's ear, then the railing, it would have passed through 'Tough old bird's stomach.
Here's a screenshot that suggests that. However, the only injury he received, apparently, was cuts and burn marks on the back of his right elbow.
-
What I meant was that if the bullet came from Crooks and hit first Trump's ear, then the railing, it would have passed through 'Tough old bird's stomach.
Here's a screenshot that suggests that. However, the only injury he received, apparently, was cuts and burn marks on the back of his right elbow.
We saw from how Trump turning his head made a difference to the effect. Small margins make quite a difference and that could equally apply here. Over analysing when so much evidence supports Crooks as being the lone gun man is a bit pointless I would say.
-
We saw from how Trump turning his head made a difference to the effect. Small margins make quite a difference and that could equally apply here. Over analysing when so much evidence supports Crooks as being the lone gun man is a bit pointless I would say.
Yep. As far as I can tell, we have ten shots. There's no reason to believe that any of the first eight did not come from Crooks. The last two both came from snipers. The first disabled Crooks' rifle. The second killed him.
-
We saw from how Trump turning his head made a difference to the effect. Small margins make quite a difference and that could equally apply here. Over analysing when so much evidence supports Crooks as being the lone gun man is a bit pointless I would say.
Any crime scene would be analyzed, and here the possibility of a second shooter or an accomplice ought to be seriously looked at. It does look more and more like a lone shooter but outstanding questions remain. Assuming the bullet somehow missed Tough Old Bird (see the T-shirt), why if it came from Crooks does the ricochet off the railing give the impression the bullet was travelling from left to right? Is this an optical illusion?
Did the bullet hit Trump or was he grazed by one of the bodyguards as they bundled onto him? There is no blood on his hand after he touched his ear. If it passed say a foot from him causing a thump effect, it could have then hit the railing without going through Tough Old Bird.
Just putting my thoughts down.
-
Any crime scene would be analyzed, and here the possibility of a second shooter or a coordinator ought to be seriously looked at. It does look more and more like a lone shooter but outstanding questions remain. Assuming the bullet somehow missed Tough Old Bird (see the T-shirt), why if it came from Crooks does the ricochet off the railing give the impression the bullet was travelling from left to right? Is this an optical illusion?
Did the bullet hit Trump or was he grazed by one of the bodyguards as they bundled onto him? There is no blood on his hand after he touched his ear. If it passed say a foot from him causing a thump effect, it could have then hit the railing without going through Tough Old Bird.
Just putting my thoughts down.
I was talking about amateurs such as you and I analysing it when we don't have access to the actual crime scene and aren't experts in ballistics and the like. Of course the authorities should investigate and as far as i know they have and concluded that Crooks was a lone shooter.
Okay to put your thoughts down so long as it doesn#'t elad you down a rabbit hole as far as I'm concerned.
-
Any crime scene would be analyzed, and here the possibility of a second shooter or a coordinator ought to be seriously looked at.
Why? There's no evidence for anything other than a lone shooter.
It does look more and more like a lone shooter but outstanding questions remain.
It never didn't look like a lone shooter.
-
Why? There's no evidence for anything other than a lone shooter.It never didn't look like a lone shooter.
I can agree that the railing shot would have come from Crooks.
Looks like he had an accomplice though, watch this space.
-
I can agree that the railing shot would have come from Crooks.
Looks like he had an accomplice though, watch this space.
What makes you say that?
-
I shot the former US president,
But I didn't shoot no former US president's deputy...
Bob Wailey and the Marlers.
-
What makes you say that?
From above, Crooks, the podium and the impact spot on the railing at the corner of the stand line up pretty well, and the angle of travel is about 45 degrees to the line of the back railing, which could make the puff look as though it was coming straight down that line.
On the video where Jeff Ostroff discusses the bodycam of the Butler cop M500 010482, two people are visible on the roof within yards of each other. Jeff only sees the second one, but someone on X has noticed the other, who is only visible for about half a second.
At one point Jeff slows it down, and you can best see the first person at 4:17, if you play it at 0.25 speed. Look for something like a telegraph pole at the far right of the picture, sticking up above the building. Just to the left of the telegraph pole you see a brief glimpse of him. Continue watching and you'll then see the other person whom Jeff points out near the same telegraph pole. Might be easier to start there and then go backwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBy7QjiDcLo&t=249s
-
From above, Crooks, the podium and the impact spot on the railing at the corner of the stand line up pretty well, and the angle of travel is about 45 degrees to the line of the back railing, which could make the puff look as though it was coming straight down that line.
On the video where Jeff Ostroff discusses the bodycam of the Butler cop M500 010482, two people are visible on the roof within yards of each other. Jeff only sees the second one, but someone on X has noticed the other, who is only visible for about half a second.
At one point Jeff slows it down, and you can best see the first person at 4:17, if you play it at 0.25 speed. Look for something like a telegraph pole at the far right of the picture, sticking up above the building. Just to the left of the telegraph pole you see a brief glimpse of him. Continue watching and you'll then see the other person whom Jeff points out near the same telegraph pole. Might be easier to start there and then go backwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBy7QjiDcLo&t=249s
Can't see another person.
-
Someone else has had a go. Unfortunately, they too missed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/sep/15/donald-trump-shooting-florida-golf-course
-
Someone else has had a go. Unfortunately, they too missed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/sep/15/donald-trump-shooting-florida-golf-course
Always lovely to see someone wanting someone murdered.
-
Always lovely to see someone wanting someone murdered.
Joke, obviously.
It's not altogether clear from the reports whether the gunman actually fired any shots. Gunshots were heard, but he had been spotted with a rifle by Secret Service agents who fired at him, so it may be that the shots that were heard were from them alone.
-
Joke, obviously.
It's not altogether clear from the reports whether the gunman actually fired any shots. Gunshots were heard, but he had been spotted with a rifle by Secret Service agents who fired at him, so it may be that the shots that were heard were from them alone.
It's a shite joke.
-
Joke, obviously.
It's not altogether clear from the reports whether the gunman actually fired any shots. Gunshots were heard, but he had been spotted with a rifle by Secret Service agents who fired at him, so it may be that the shots that were heard were from them alone.
Apparently, her never had sight of Tr*mp.
-
Trump has the luck of the devil to have survived two apparent assassination attempts, unlike the 4 US presidents who were assassinated whilst still in office.
-
Trump has the luck of the devil to have survived two apparent assassination attempts, unlike the 4 US presidents who were assassinated whilst still in office.
God is protecting him.
-
Can't see another person.
He's there if you watch frame by frame. However the time stamp is about 18:08:45, whereas the time when the other cop sees Crooks running along the rooftop is about 18:08:25. So the two people could perhaps be police officers? Or the times may not be in sync?
-
Trump has the luck of the devil to have survived two apparent assassination attempts, unlike the 4 US presidents who were assassinated whilst still in office.
There's quite a number of failed assassination attempts as well on Presidents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
-
He's there if you watch frame by frame. However the time stamp is about 18:08:45, whereas the time when the other cop sees Crooks running along the rooftop is about 18:08:25. So the two people could perhaps be police officers? Or the times may not be in sync?
Can you do a screen grab and point this other person out please?
-
There's quite a number of failed assassination attempts as well on Presidents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
And those are just the ones we know about.
-
Can you do a screen grab and point this other person out please?
Even better, if you can view this it shows the entire clip of the person close up:
https://x.com/JG_CSTT/status/1835147773001261535/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1835147773001261535¤tTweetUser=JG_CSTT
-
Even better, if you can view this it shows the entire clip of the person close up:
https://x.com/JG_CSTT/status/1835147773001261535/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1835147773001261535¤tTweetUser=JG_CSTT
Said page doesn't exist.
-
Said page doesn't exist.
Maybe it's for X subscribers only? Here's a screenshot instead.
-
Maybe it's for X subscribers only? Here's a screenshot instead.
Thanks. I can see what you are referring to now.
-
Said page doesn't exist.
Try this link https://x.com/JG_CSTT/status/1835147773001261535
It's the same as Spud's but with all the tracking crap deleted
-
Try this link https://x.com/JG_CSTT/status/1835147773001261535
It's the same as Spud's but with all the tracking crap deleted
Thanks.
-
Try this link https://x.com/JG_CSTT/status/1835147773001261535
It's the same as Spud's but with all the tracking crap deleted
Thanks. Somebody on X has said this about the upright object to the right of the telegraph pole, which Jeff says is Crooks: "compared to the person that is clearly moving which Jeff doesn’t point out, it just seems like something else, yes the gap between the tree and building suggests movement but to me it’s the car moving which makes that seem like a person moving."
I think this looks correct. I might have a look at the complex on Google maps and see if there's another pole sticking up in that position.
-
Thanks. Somebody on X has said this about the upright object to the right of the telegraph pole, which Jeff says is Crooks: "compared to the person that is clearly moving which Jeff doesn’t point out, it just seems like something else, yes the gap between the tree and building suggests movement but to me it’s the car moving which makes that seem like a person moving."
I think this looks correct. I might have a look at the complex on Google maps and see if there's another pole sticking up in that position.
Yes, when I watched the original clip I thought the point about the car moving so the gap would close was missed.
-
Yes, when I watched the original clip I thought the point about the car moving so the gap would close was missed.
As Jeff says, there isn't anything sticking up that could be mistaken for a person, and watching it again I think it is a person moving. So I've changed my mind again!
-
As Jeff says, there isn't anything sticking up that could be mistaken for a person, and watching it again I think it is a person moving. So I've changed my mind again!
There are some white chimney/pipes on the roof. I think the 'person' identified by Jeff Ostroff isn't a person but rather the figure you and others have pointed out is Crook. The item identified by Jeff Ostroff isn't really moving but just looks like it is due to the camera moving.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.8585497,-79.9699825,3a,25y,277.42h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svJOzBbCVaG0ur_Sy8cQu1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.8585497,-79.9699825,3a,25y,277.42h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svJOzBbCVaG0ur_Sy8cQu1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
-
There are some white chimney/pipes on the roof. I think the 'person' identified by Jeff Ostroff isn't a person but rather the figure you and others have pointed out is Crook. The item identified by Jeff Ostroff isn't really moving but just looks like it is due to the camera moving.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.8585497,-79.9699825,3a,25y,277.42h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svJOzBbCVaG0ur_Sy8cQu1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.8585497,-79.9699825,3a,25y,277.42h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svJOzBbCVaG0ur_Sy8cQu1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
Watch again, slow it right down and zoom right in. There are two stationary objects besides the telegraph pole and the tree, then another moving object that crosses in front of one of the two stationary ones.
It's quite hard to believe that there would be two people involved, but remember that Crooks was seen without a back pack right up until I think 20 minutes before the shooting, so where was the back pack? We still have no proof of where Greg Nichols and Murco(?) went when they left their posts during the few minutes after they saw him walking round the back 'towards Sheetz'.
-
The item identified by Jeff Ostroff isn't really moving but just looks like it is due to the camera moving.
He comes out from behind the tree while the car is still turning right, which proves that he is moving. When the car starts turning left, that makes it look as though he's stationary.
-
He comes out from behind the tree while the car is still turning right, which proves that he is moving. When the car starts turning left, that makes it look as though he's stationary.
Hmmmm - not so sure. But - there are a number of other videos of Crooks on the roof, wouldn't a second person appear on them? Not seen any showing a second person.
-
The conspiracies from both sides
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvglm0rjy2go
-
The conspiracies from both sides
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvglm0rjy2go
Two of my least favourite words are "holistic" and "wellness", both of which are here probably code for covid and vaccine denial, as well as other irresponsible wackinesses, and my least favourite US president is Donald Trump. I don't think Wild Mother and I would dee eye to eye.
-
Two of my least favourite words are "holistic" and "wellness", both of which are here probably code for covid and vaccine denial, as well as other irresponsible wackinesses, and my least favourite US president is Donald Trump. I don't think Wild Mother and I would dee eye to eye.
Though I'm sure there are plenty of people who will use those terms who will think Trump staged the assassinations.
-
Hmmmm - not so sure. But - there are a number of other videos of Crooks on the roof, wouldn't a second person appear on them? Not seen any showing a second person.
I think you're right, based on This new video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGvKiTwfaNM&t=128s). They start at 6:08:30. One person pops up on the roof at 6:08:36pm, moves towards the left as you look at the screen. The timing and the speed he is walking fit pretty well with it being the person seen briefly on the other cop cam at 6:08:45, although by this point he isn't visible on the new video. The object Jeff thought was the shooter I think must be be a chimney or another telegraph pole in the distance.