Agree with this assessment, based on the "outsider" data we have. Satisfies Occam's Razor principle in that it is simple and explains all the data without requiring unreasonable assumptions. Could easily be confirmed (or not) if we had info on Crooks' injuries, recovered bullets, casings, etc.— of which investigators have custody.
I have read, and believe, that SS was in ultimate control of the site. As such, their coordination with local law enforcement appears to be not up to snuff.
Aren't interagency comms a long-standing and well known problem? You'd think there would've been a concerted effort to solve this.
I wonder how much of a strain Trump's famously busy campaign schedule puts on security. How much lead time does each advance team need to set up coordination with local law enforcement at each location and brief the participants? When you think about it, it seems like a huge undertaking involving lots of people.
Still believe it was Black Op. Crooks identified as being susceptible to mind control and hypnosis!
He bought 5.5 foot ladder but a 12 foot ladder in alcove behind evergreen trees was required. Why no drone for surveillance.? Why has the SS site manager not been called to testify?
Nope . I still don't believe Trump was ever shot. The fake blood, the fact that the crowd didn't even move. Then later the picture is changed to show the crowd did move. No blood on Trumps collar, shirt or cuff. Too many fake stories. Did Trump ever even call the widow of the man killed?
Fake blood: an assumption without any proof. There was blood streaming the moment Trump was down, before he got up.
Crowd did not move? What do you mean? There is a lot of video showing people hitting the deck, the moment the shots rang out, all across. Some people did run away. Indeed, a good number does not, and remains standing, shocked, in disbelief. You see and hear the release in tension the moment Trump gets up and shows he is alive and still in the fight.
THe lack of blood on his collar, shirt and cuff? Blood streams DOWN, and as he went almost immediately down, facing his head towards the ground, the blood dripped towards his chin, not his collar or shirt. The bleeding was then stopped with a cloth, on a very hot day (93degrees).
I take it you're a reader/listener of Peggy Hall, of The Healthy American? These are all the questions she has been asking, which you are now parroting. Peggy has been right about many things, but she is not God and therefore she, like all of us, can be 100% right, 100% wrong, or even 50/50. My discernment tells me Peggy is at the 50/50 mark on this one. I fear she is the type of person C.S. Lewis was describing in the quote in this article. We must adopt a wait-and-see attitude, open to evidence as it becomes available, rather than pridefully digging in our heels and insisting ours is the only correct position on the matter.
Actually there is some really good sound/audio analyses by experts to consider and add to the bucket of various bits of evidence. I’m not saying anything is certain but there are some powerful arguments. Check this link by Vigilant Fox, and the next link she referenced, which I found quite compelling to watch the whole thing. The distance of shots 6 and 7 were ~800 ft and ~1100-1500 feet respectively. Only shots 4 and 5 matched the distance of the first three
That is not how that works:: guilty until proven innocent?
Where is the proof it was her, beyond very vague resemblance, that could fit many other women?
The ears don't match, for example. Look at that, and tell me how that is the same woman...
Careful for hoaxes. Don't believe claims simply because 'it looks the same': IS it?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. To state that the assistant director of the FBI's Insider Threat Office was at the rally, signaling the shooter (really? they need a person in the line of fire, to give a signal? What for? why not someone else, out of camera reach? Could the sniper even see her? (Based on the layout and positions, I doubt Crooks could even see her: Remember that she is seated perpendicular to his line of sight, with many people on the same row before her.)
Interesting that people are calling her out by name. If she wasn’t there then she should be all about proving where she was. But she isn’t doing that. Instead the FBI (not Janeen) just issues a categorical denial, like we are supposed to believe the lying FBI. and sting she has never “worked” in PA before. I guess we are supposed to take that to mean that because she has never worked in PA in the past she wouldn’t know how to get there? I can tell you that if my name came up as a person of interest who was there I would work hard to prove I wasn’t there, and I could prove I wasn’t there because I wasn’t there! And we all know this case is never going to be fully investigated and there will be no trial because the FBI and SS will investigate themselves and find that they did nothing wrong except maybe a teeny tiny bit of incompetence and that will be that. So is and should be a person of interest and if she is NOT investigated by the agency investigating itself, that tells me all I need to know. SOMEONE was there in a black hat acting strangely. If this were J6 she would be in jail already. But all of the sudden the FBI is keen to rule people of interest out quickly. Interesting. That’s what they do when their own people are outed by the public. We have seen this playbook before. And if someone comes knocking on my door because I am making noise about her, then we will KNOW that I was right over the target. By the way, why are you so keen to rule her out quickly with no investigation whatsoever?
Yes, actually, you are under suspicion. For someone holding himself out as being a sort of truth-seeking investigative journalist, you do seem strangely uninterested in this person of interest.
'If you are going to accuse anyone, make sure it is unassailable, based only on those elements that can be proven, and excluding all other elements that can be proven to be irrelevant. Don’t keep in any distractions, or flat-out errors, or any other ways out for the other side: things they can exploit, by proven you got it all wrong, after all, dismissing your credibility.'
This is so important, so frequently ignored. I really appreciate the dispassionate analysis.
You need to watch John Cullens presentation again. Your presentation of Alexanders does not describe how one single shot struck one person in the right hand bleacher (looking at it from the crowd), continued to ruffle something held by a woman half way along - purse or scarf - then strike the handrail giving off a cloud of debris that is called 'smoke', the debris of which injures a spectator who then gets manhandled down by police officers. The line of that single bullet striking along the back row of the right hand bleacher gives a trajectory that lines up NOT with the water tower, which has had as many as ten eye witnesses stating there was someone up there - "who was shot" - but way off to the right of the tower. There is the anomaly, as yet an undiscovered point from which a shot (or more) have been taken.
Then there is the image of the water tower shown without a ladder to the top. But seen from another angle DOES have a ladder rising up and over the dome over the top. Cullen thinks there is a ladder going down through the centre. I have my doubts about that claim.
No one has yet come up with exactly who shot what from where, which bullets hit who. I believe Crooks shot the Fire Chief, and clipped Trumps ear, one bullet puncturing the hydraulics of the JCB telescopic fork lift. Other shots were aimed at the roof top SS snipers from way off, one of which fatally wounded one man, and caused shrapnel damage to another. NOT one shooter.
Alexander clearly showed that the first person Cullen mentioned was not hit, as he got up again right after, standing around, etc. He got startled, and slipped. Look closely at the panoramic video.
The trajectory that bullet that Cullen describes is supposed to take, makes no sense: it starts in the buildings, and there are a lot more people present who should have been in the way, and who are not hit (the longer video of the panoramic shot reveals that).
Cullen's view is thoroughly refuted by Alexander and the new angle he showed.
I stand corrected on the ladder on the water tower, there is one I did miss, I will add an addendum to rectify that. However, this does not change any of the other points refuting the water tower theory.
On who shot who, I think we're getting pretty close. There is new information that confirms a first sniper shot, from the police team, that missed.
They, the deep state, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Biden admin, they ALL wanted this to happen, THEY are all complicit. THEY all lie to the American people.
It was a setup, at the VERY LEAST using the roof guy. He was setup for their purposes, and to at least be the DEAD PATSY.
I am old enough to have lived through the JFK murder by the CIA and deep state, and watched them kill Oswald, the patsy, live on TV. Our government has been run by this same criminal syndicate for decades. NEVER GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT! They are evil, they wanted Trump dead, and they want YOU and ME dead.
Not that it appears to matter, at this point...but going back to the water tower for a second...
Just a point of clarification. Your photo shows a pipe going up to the top of the water tower, to the RIGHT of the access ladder from the ground, BUT, using Street View, going around the other side of the tower, it looks like there is a ladder that goes to the top of the tower, which is on the LEFT of the access ladder from the ground.
It LOOKS like there is access to the very top of the tower, which makes sense, for maintenance, etc.
I just found that angle, and I stand correcter. There is indeed a ladder on the back, and I will correct the article. But you're right, it does not really change the other points refuting the water tower theory.
Thank you so much for finding and sharing these excellent reconstructions. They certainly show how modern technology can be used by individuals with even moderate means. No longer is high technology only available to the wealthy and powerful. Let me be a bit overly poetic and compare this situation to 1776 when the weapons which armed government financed soldiers could be made on village blacksmith forges to arm ordinary farmers who could then become revolutionaries. For good and for bad and everything in between, military technology was democratic and equal. That is becoming true once again. Like it or hate it, Hamas is proving that in Gaza right now.
We still do not have any facts showing that Crooks could shoot. Also, the deliberate character of the first three shots versus the wild, irrational character of the remainder hasn’t been reconciled. Also, while you pointed out the problems with Martenson’s audio analysis; CNN also reported on the results of a forensic audio analysis by Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, Senior Professional Research Associate at the same institution. This analysis also reports there were 3 shooters. I think you have too quickly disregarded this as an unsupported internet hoax. But, here is the article: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-rally-shooting-07-14-24#h_e3b77ce122987eb5d2059a2dff21a270
We have the shots fired, and the known hits, from a known location, where Crooks was. He could shoot, those facts prove that.
On the difference between the first 3 deliberate shots vs the 5 wild, fast shots after: that is reconciled by panic: realizing he missed Trump, and no longer having Trump in his sight. What other reconciliation would you expect or need?
I am aware of the analysis of Grigoras, as I mentioned in my article. But as long as we cannot access that analysis, and see the methodology and source for her claims, those are bare assertions. I am not saying she is wrong, simply that I cannot verify them. Which 3 shooters is she talking about? With new information that just today came out, the local police sniper team made a shot, but missed (the '6th' shot, immediately after the rapid fire 5 shots?). Now we have 3 shooters: 2 police, 1 Crooks, fully in line with the Grigoras analysis. See what I mean? We cannot use the very bare bones claim by CNN about her report, without seeing the report and find out what exactly she found.
The claims by Martenson can be disregarded, as he made some clear and serious errors.
But thank you for that input, it forces us all, myself included, to be more clear.
Grigoras is a he, not a she : ) I know because I looked him up and wrote to him at his University of Colorado at Denver address five days ago, but haven't heard back.
Thank you ArnGrimR. I appreciate your analysis and that you have taken the time to respond to me. I am ready to move on to asking what our government intelligence knew about Crooks activities in advance of the shooting and reconciling that with the numerous security failures, the leaked details from Secret Service, the last minute Dr Jill Biden event, and the sudden fascination of mainstream media surrounding this rally. I look forward to any analysis and/or reference that you provide.
I saw that, but her claim is immediately disproven. She looks at the puff of debris from a bullet hitting the railing, but if you look closely, that debris moves away from the bleachers, and not in the direction she indicated. In the confusion of the moment, people saw perhaps that flash of debris, and the spray of the hydraulic fluid. There is nothing that indicates a shot from behind the bleachers. Who was behind the bleachers? Police and secret service, guarding the motorcade of Trump. Not a good space to be shooting from. Also, where was that shooter shooting at, if he was behind the bleachers and shooting, creating that puff? Makes zero sense, I am afraid.
Thank you, ArnGrimR! Though I'm not completely sure we can utterly rule out the possibility of a shot from the SS, etc., if we're looking at high level complicity.
Also, that woman claimed to have heard shots from closer to where she was on the left side of Trump. She was referring to sound of closer proximity, not to the puff of debris, in that short video.
I think we can rule a shot from USSS out, based on angles of the actual shots fired (unless you claim a USSS operative on the fringes of the location), the direction they are fired from, and the fact that no one would openly aim a gun at Trump and fire, in USSS uniform, in clear sight of cameras that are everywhere.
Which does not mean that there is no high level complicity within USSS, just not when it comes to who did the shooting.
On the sound: eyewitness are often confused on either the number of shots they think they heard, or the direction they came from. Her eyes were drawn to her right, because of the very visible hydraulic fluid spray, predisposing her mind to interpret the sounds as coming from that direction. (And that is in no way derogatory of that woman!) Or, she heard some kind of echo, interpreting that for the gunshots.
In that short video, the text she put up DID talk about the 'flash' (the impact of the bullet on the rail) and the puff of smoke, coming not from behind, but from the left.. The flash was not a muzzle flash, but an impact artifact.
So without physical evidence to corroborate her claims, this remains, to me, an example of eyewitness confusion and apophenia. With all respect to that mother!
I appreciate your patience with me, and your politeness. Too often people get defense and aggressive when others dare push back.
And I deeply appreciate your patience and willingness to respond to my questions and wonderings with detailed replies, ArnGrimR! Your answers make a lot of sense to me.
I'm always seeking the truth. In fact, that's highlighted in the name of my Substack!
I've donned my Hercule Poirot hat, and have a new idea, ArnGrimR. Please see if you can rule it out. If not, it may be the answer we've been looking for.
We were told the USSS were in the same building as Crooks, but on the inside, on the second story. However, recently, someone posted a video showing there is no second story on that building, rather there is a second story on the adjacent building. Why mislead us that way--carelessness?
Could the first 3 shots have come from a second story window in that building? If so, that would explain a number of things.
It would explain why the USSS were stationed inside, and in that particular building. It would place skilled snipers--whether the USSS or another trained expert marksman perhaps in another room in the same second story--where they'd have close to the same shooting trajectory as Crooks. It would explain why the plotters wanted Crooks on that roof--as a decoy as well as a patsy. And it would explain why the acoustics are so different between the first 3 expert shots, and the ensuing volley. It would also still fit with Amber's excellent animated reconstruction of the trajectory of all the shots fired during the rally.
If this scenario seems possible, Crooks might have been recruited to help the "good guys" take out "bad guy Trump" and told to wait till 3 shots were fired, and then to fire a volley himself.
Agree with this assessment, based on the "outsider" data we have. Satisfies Occam's Razor principle in that it is simple and explains all the data without requiring unreasonable assumptions. Could easily be confirmed (or not) if we had info on Crooks' injuries, recovered bullets, casings, etc.— of which investigators have custody.
Which will come out in due time.
For now, we need to focus where it really matters. Who made all the decisions re: Secret Service, scheduling, local police, site security, etc.
I have read, and believe, that SS was in ultimate control of the site. As such, their coordination with local law enforcement appears to be not up to snuff.
Aren't interagency comms a long-standing and well known problem? You'd think there would've been a concerted effort to solve this.
I wonder how much of a strain Trump's famously busy campaign schedule puts on security. How much lead time does each advance team need to set up coordination with local law enforcement at each location and brief the participants? When you think about it, it seems like a huge undertaking involving lots of people.
Still believe it was Black Op. Crooks identified as being susceptible to mind control and hypnosis!
He bought 5.5 foot ladder but a 12 foot ladder in alcove behind evergreen trees was required. Why no drone for surveillance.? Why has the SS site manager not been called to testify?
Right. The crucial evidence can be withheld, omitted, or changed depending on the honesty and intentions of those with the evidence.
Nope . I still don't believe Trump was ever shot. The fake blood, the fact that the crowd didn't even move. Then later the picture is changed to show the crowd did move. No blood on Trumps collar, shirt or cuff. Too many fake stories. Did Trump ever even call the widow of the man killed?
Read the author’s earlier posts on this topic. He answers most of your questions.
Fake blood: an assumption without any proof. There was blood streaming the moment Trump was down, before he got up.
Crowd did not move? What do you mean? There is a lot of video showing people hitting the deck, the moment the shots rang out, all across. Some people did run away. Indeed, a good number does not, and remains standing, shocked, in disbelief. You see and hear the release in tension the moment Trump gets up and shows he is alive and still in the fight.
THe lack of blood on his collar, shirt and cuff? Blood streams DOWN, and as he went almost immediately down, facing his head towards the ground, the blood dripped towards his chin, not his collar or shirt. The bleeding was then stopped with a cloth, on a very hot day (93degrees).
Trump DID call the widow of the man killed. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4776605-helen-comperatore-donald-trump-call-rally-shooting/ This could be easily verified (check the Cabot News and Community group on Facebook).
You believe what you want to believe, of course. But the facts remain.
There are too many independent videos from the crowd to claim that there was editing.
What does calling the widow, or not, have to do with anything?
I take it you're a reader/listener of Peggy Hall, of The Healthy American? These are all the questions she has been asking, which you are now parroting. Peggy has been right about many things, but she is not God and therefore she, like all of us, can be 100% right, 100% wrong, or even 50/50. My discernment tells me Peggy is at the 50/50 mark on this one. I fear she is the type of person C.S. Lewis was describing in the quote in this article. We must adopt a wait-and-see attitude, open to evidence as it becomes available, rather than pridefully digging in our heels and insisting ours is the only correct position on the matter.
I have no desire to receive pay either just get wisdom out that may help someone searching to gain insight...!
IF one has good info write a book that sells...lol
Tho know myself ballistic accuracy with the right gun, caliber, trigger, load, scope and shooter can make a baseball size group at 500-600yds
Thanks for keeping at it.
Actually there is some really good sound/audio analyses by experts to consider and add to the bucket of various bits of evidence. I’m not saying anything is certain but there are some powerful arguments. Check this link by Vigilant Fox, and the next link she referenced, which I found quite compelling to watch the whole thing. The distance of shots 6 and 7 were ~800 ft and ~1100-1500 feet respectively. Only shots 4 and 5 matched the distance of the first three
https://open.substack.com/pub/vigilantfox/p/the-official-story-of-a-lone-gunman?r=1x1wzs&utm_medium=ios
https://rumble.com/v57ke59-new-audio-forensic-analysis-reveals-at-least-three-shooters-at-trump-campai.html
And another post to consider
https://open.substack.com/pub/thetruthaboutcancerofficial/p/illuminating-inconsistencies-and?r=1x1wzs&utm_medium=ios
Black hat lady aka Janeen Diguiseppi of the FBI is the key to unraveling the whole ball of yarn.
That has been refuted.
It's a red herring.
Really? Where? What is her alibi?
That is not how that works:: guilty until proven innocent?
Where is the proof it was her, beyond very vague resemblance, that could fit many other women?
The ears don't match, for example. Look at that, and tell me how that is the same woman...
Careful for hoaxes. Don't believe claims simply because 'it looks the same': IS it?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. To state that the assistant director of the FBI's Insider Threat Office was at the rally, signaling the shooter (really? they need a person in the line of fire, to give a signal? What for? why not someone else, out of camera reach? Could the sniper even see her? (Based on the layout and positions, I doubt Crooks could even see her: Remember that she is seated perpendicular to his line of sight, with many people on the same row before her.)
Interesting that people are calling her out by name. If she wasn’t there then she should be all about proving where she was. But she isn’t doing that. Instead the FBI (not Janeen) just issues a categorical denial, like we are supposed to believe the lying FBI. and sting she has never “worked” in PA before. I guess we are supposed to take that to mean that because she has never worked in PA in the past she wouldn’t know how to get there? I can tell you that if my name came up as a person of interest who was there I would work hard to prove I wasn’t there, and I could prove I wasn’t there because I wasn’t there! And we all know this case is never going to be fully investigated and there will be no trial because the FBI and SS will investigate themselves and find that they did nothing wrong except maybe a teeny tiny bit of incompetence and that will be that. So is and should be a person of interest and if she is NOT investigated by the agency investigating itself, that tells me all I need to know. SOMEONE was there in a black hat acting strangely. If this were J6 she would be in jail already. But all of the sudden the FBI is keen to rule people of interest out quickly. Interesting. That’s what they do when their own people are outed by the public. We have seen this playbook before. And if someone comes knocking on my door because I am making noise about her, then we will KNOW that I was right over the target. By the way, why are you so keen to rule her out quickly with no investigation whatsoever?
Oh, now I am under suspicion?
This is mob thinking. (And why it is so easy for people to call out others by name, without any grounds, whatsoever.)
Yes, actually, you are under suspicion. For someone holding himself out as being a sort of truth-seeking investigative journalist, you do seem strangely uninterested in this person of interest.
Indeed, Arn. Let me restrain myself, as you do, being decent. This type of insinuation is easy to do. Cui bono?
The kid was a patseeee… sad for his family .
He sure was a patsy.
These animals are ruthless
'If you are going to accuse anyone, make sure it is unassailable, based only on those elements that can be proven, and excluding all other elements that can be proven to be irrelevant. Don’t keep in any distractions, or flat-out errors, or any other ways out for the other side: things they can exploit, by proven you got it all wrong, after all, dismissing your credibility.'
This is so important, so frequently ignored. I really appreciate the dispassionate analysis.
Too little, too late and still repeating lies. The blood was visible on Trump's hand as soon as he touched his ear. I'm outta here.
Which lies are repeated?
I haven't seen high resolution pictures of the moment Trump got shot, and first touched his ear. Can you give the URL for those pics? Thanks!
You need to watch John Cullens presentation again. Your presentation of Alexanders does not describe how one single shot struck one person in the right hand bleacher (looking at it from the crowd), continued to ruffle something held by a woman half way along - purse or scarf - then strike the handrail giving off a cloud of debris that is called 'smoke', the debris of which injures a spectator who then gets manhandled down by police officers. The line of that single bullet striking along the back row of the right hand bleacher gives a trajectory that lines up NOT with the water tower, which has had as many as ten eye witnesses stating there was someone up there - "who was shot" - but way off to the right of the tower. There is the anomaly, as yet an undiscovered point from which a shot (or more) have been taken.
Then there is the image of the water tower shown without a ladder to the top. But seen from another angle DOES have a ladder rising up and over the dome over the top. Cullen thinks there is a ladder going down through the centre. I have my doubts about that claim.
No one has yet come up with exactly who shot what from where, which bullets hit who. I believe Crooks shot the Fire Chief, and clipped Trumps ear, one bullet puncturing the hydraulics of the JCB telescopic fork lift. Other shots were aimed at the roof top SS snipers from way off, one of which fatally wounded one man, and caused shrapnel damage to another. NOT one shooter.
Alexander clearly showed that the first person Cullen mentioned was not hit, as he got up again right after, standing around, etc. He got startled, and slipped. Look closely at the panoramic video.
The trajectory that bullet that Cullen describes is supposed to take, makes no sense: it starts in the buildings, and there are a lot more people present who should have been in the way, and who are not hit (the longer video of the panoramic shot reveals that).
Cullen's view is thoroughly refuted by Alexander and the new angle he showed.
I stand corrected on the ladder on the water tower, there is one I did miss, I will add an addendum to rectify that. However, this does not change any of the other points refuting the water tower theory.
On who shot who, I think we're getting pretty close. There is new information that confirms a first sniper shot, from the police team, that missed.
Thank you for your input and corrections!
They, the deep state, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Biden admin, they ALL wanted this to happen, THEY are all complicit. THEY all lie to the American people.
It was a setup, at the VERY LEAST using the roof guy. He was setup for their purposes, and to at least be the DEAD PATSY.
I am old enough to have lived through the JFK murder by the CIA and deep state, and watched them kill Oswald, the patsy, live on TV. Our government has been run by this same criminal syndicate for decades. NEVER GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT! They are evil, they wanted Trump dead, and they want YOU and ME dead.
Not that it appears to matter, at this point...but going back to the water tower for a second...
Just a point of clarification. Your photo shows a pipe going up to the top of the water tower, to the RIGHT of the access ladder from the ground, BUT, using Street View, going around the other side of the tower, it looks like there is a ladder that goes to the top of the tower, which is on the LEFT of the access ladder from the ground.
It LOOKS like there is access to the very top of the tower, which makes sense, for maintenance, etc.
Again, it probably doesn't matter, but...
I just found that angle, and I stand correcter. There is indeed a ladder on the back, and I will correct the article. But you're right, it does not really change the other points refuting the water tower theory.
Thanks for quoting C.S.Lewis - his wise words are eminently applicable to today's ever increasing 'hate' spiral on the (anti)-social media.
Thank you so much for finding and sharing these excellent reconstructions. They certainly show how modern technology can be used by individuals with even moderate means. No longer is high technology only available to the wealthy and powerful. Let me be a bit overly poetic and compare this situation to 1776 when the weapons which armed government financed soldiers could be made on village blacksmith forges to arm ordinary farmers who could then become revolutionaries. For good and for bad and everything in between, military technology was democratic and equal. That is becoming true once again. Like it or hate it, Hamas is proving that in Gaza right now.
We still do not have any facts showing that Crooks could shoot. Also, the deliberate character of the first three shots versus the wild, irrational character of the remainder hasn’t been reconciled. Also, while you pointed out the problems with Martenson’s audio analysis; CNN also reported on the results of a forensic audio analysis by Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, Senior Professional Research Associate at the same institution. This analysis also reports there were 3 shooters. I think you have too quickly disregarded this as an unsupported internet hoax. But, here is the article: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-rally-shooting-07-14-24#h_e3b77ce122987eb5d2059a2dff21a270
We have the shots fired, and the known hits, from a known location, where Crooks was. He could shoot, those facts prove that.
On the difference between the first 3 deliberate shots vs the 5 wild, fast shots after: that is reconciled by panic: realizing he missed Trump, and no longer having Trump in his sight. What other reconciliation would you expect or need?
I am aware of the analysis of Grigoras, as I mentioned in my article. But as long as we cannot access that analysis, and see the methodology and source for her claims, those are bare assertions. I am not saying she is wrong, simply that I cannot verify them. Which 3 shooters is she talking about? With new information that just today came out, the local police sniper team made a shot, but missed (the '6th' shot, immediately after the rapid fire 5 shots?). Now we have 3 shooters: 2 police, 1 Crooks, fully in line with the Grigoras analysis. See what I mean? We cannot use the very bare bones claim by CNN about her report, without seeing the report and find out what exactly she found.
The claims by Martenson can be disregarded, as he made some clear and serious errors.
But thank you for that input, it forces us all, myself included, to be more clear.
Grigoras is a he, not a she : ) I know because I looked him up and wrote to him at his University of Colorado at Denver address five days ago, but haven't heard back.
Thank you ArnGrimR. I appreciate your analysis and that you have taken the time to respond to me. I am ready to move on to asking what our government intelligence knew about Crooks activities in advance of the shooting and reconciling that with the numerous security failures, the leaked details from Secret Service, the last minute Dr Jill Biden event, and the sudden fascination of mainstream media surrounding this rally. I look forward to any analysis and/or reference that you provide.
ArnGrimR: Please take a look at this eyewitness video:
https://x.com/myhiddenvalue/status/1813913952700743904
If shots were fired from behind the left side of the bleachers, that changes the picture.
Could the shot aimed at Trump's head have come from behind him on his left side?
I saw that, but her claim is immediately disproven. She looks at the puff of debris from a bullet hitting the railing, but if you look closely, that debris moves away from the bleachers, and not in the direction she indicated. In the confusion of the moment, people saw perhaps that flash of debris, and the spray of the hydraulic fluid. There is nothing that indicates a shot from behind the bleachers. Who was behind the bleachers? Police and secret service, guarding the motorcade of Trump. Not a good space to be shooting from. Also, where was that shooter shooting at, if he was behind the bleachers and shooting, creating that puff? Makes zero sense, I am afraid.
Thank you, ArnGrimR! Though I'm not completely sure we can utterly rule out the possibility of a shot from the SS, etc., if we're looking at high level complicity.
Also, that woman claimed to have heard shots from closer to where she was on the left side of Trump. She was referring to sound of closer proximity, not to the puff of debris, in that short video.
Just seeking the truth, as you are, ArnGrimR!
Thanks so much for your work on this!
I think we can rule a shot from USSS out, based on angles of the actual shots fired (unless you claim a USSS operative on the fringes of the location), the direction they are fired from, and the fact that no one would openly aim a gun at Trump and fire, in USSS uniform, in clear sight of cameras that are everywhere.
Which does not mean that there is no high level complicity within USSS, just not when it comes to who did the shooting.
On the sound: eyewitness are often confused on either the number of shots they think they heard, or the direction they came from. Her eyes were drawn to her right, because of the very visible hydraulic fluid spray, predisposing her mind to interpret the sounds as coming from that direction. (And that is in no way derogatory of that woman!) Or, she heard some kind of echo, interpreting that for the gunshots.
In that short video, the text she put up DID talk about the 'flash' (the impact of the bullet on the rail) and the puff of smoke, coming not from behind, but from the left.. The flash was not a muzzle flash, but an impact artifact.
So without physical evidence to corroborate her claims, this remains, to me, an example of eyewitness confusion and apophenia. With all respect to that mother!
I appreciate your patience with me, and your politeness. Too often people get defense and aggressive when others dare push back.
And I deeply appreciate your patience and willingness to respond to my questions and wonderings with detailed replies, ArnGrimR! Your answers make a lot of sense to me.
I'm always seeking the truth. In fact, that's highlighted in the name of my Substack!
I've donned my Hercule Poirot hat, and have a new idea, ArnGrimR. Please see if you can rule it out. If not, it may be the answer we've been looking for.
We were told the USSS were in the same building as Crooks, but on the inside, on the second story. However, recently, someone posted a video showing there is no second story on that building, rather there is a second story on the adjacent building. Why mislead us that way--carelessness?
Could the first 3 shots have come from a second story window in that building? If so, that would explain a number of things.
It would explain why the USSS were stationed inside, and in that particular building. It would place skilled snipers--whether the USSS or another trained expert marksman perhaps in another room in the same second story--where they'd have close to the same shooting trajectory as Crooks. It would explain why the plotters wanted Crooks on that roof--as a decoy as well as a patsy. And it would explain why the acoustics are so different between the first 3 expert shots, and the ensuing volley. It would also still fit with Amber's excellent animated reconstruction of the trajectory of all the shots fired during the rally.
If this scenario seems possible, Crooks might have been recruited to help the "good guys" take out "bad guy Trump" and told to wait till 3 shots were fired, and then to fire a volley himself.
Possible, ArnGrimR? Two shooters, one location!