That doesn’t really make sense. The mist line would extend from the point of his ear, point of impact. It wouldn’t miraculously appear almost a foot later.
2 Likes
The “mist line” is a series of very fine droplets that is moving along the trajectory of the bullet. If the photo had been snapped very slightly earlier, the line would be closer to Trump’s ear; if it had been snapped very slightly later, the line would be further away (and perhaps more dispersed).
You should still be able to see residual mist dissipating and that’s not what we see.
It’s fairly consistent from tail to front lead.
That’s not how mist trails work. Gravity and air currents start affecting them and the particles, you know, mist out, away and down.
The smoke disappears quickly.
this is another reconstruction of the shots at Trump and crooks…
this man mentions something very interesting about the information he got about the postmortem…
he claims that the shot that took out crooks entered his skull about here:
and exited somewhere around his neck under his right ear:
given that crooks shot right handed and right cheeked the stock of his rifle, these entry and exit areas would make much sense if the stock of his rifle was damaged as shown in the image of the fast buriers of information (have a look at their website page dedicated to the evidence collected for the butler case):
so, if crooks took a bullet coming in near his left ear, exiting near his right cheek/chin, that could very well blow away that part of his rifle’s stock!
this opens a new question: was it bullet 9 or 10 that blew away that stock and went through is head?
at first sight, it looks more plausible that bullet 9 from the SWAT officer hit crooks, causing a relatively minor injury, but given the angle from which he shot at crooks, it is very unlikely that he matched these entry/exit/stock damages.
so, if crooks was still in the aiming position, it would have been bullet 10 that should have come from the green/bushy/parking side of the AGR building to cause these entry/exit/stock damages…
however, if crooks had turned his rifle towards the witnesses near the trees (i.e., away from the AGR parking) after he got hit by bullet 9 from the SWAT officer, then such an entry/exit/stock damage would make sense when getting killed with bullet 10 from the SWAT officer or the barn snipers…
1 Like
If i remember correct, it’s from the TMZ video.
1 Like
It would not make sense for the 10th shot because he wasn’t cheeking it then. He turned to the crowd.
The initial report from the Congressman was that shot 9 hit the stock.
Why are people trying to change it now for zero reason?
1 Like
what makes you think so?
the part where we can see his potato image not cheeking it?
not claiming shot 10 hit the stock but to me it looks like he’s cheeking just before that 10th shot comes in.
Maybe there is other images i’m not aware of and you could share.
1 Like
You need to extend your timeline for…
- What Exactly, Precisely, Were Greg Nichols and “The Other Sniper’s” Whereabouts From 5:45 to 6:12?
Their jobs did not end upon shots being fired. Their job as Snipers posted on 2nd story would evolve to give intelligence on status of shooting suspect and or if any additional threats remained.
No matter where the two of them were when shots were fired they should have immediately returned to their post and put eyes on Crooks and reported to command and subsequently all responding LEO’s that suspect was down and not moving.
What we know form all audio evidence is this was never provided for the over 4 minutes it took first LEO’s to get up on X-Over where they proceeded as if Crooks could still be a threat. “Show me your hands” repeated multiple time before proceed toward him.
If GN and Other Sniper (OS) went back to post, if not already there, they would both put eyes on him and then one would have provided cover for the other to simply step out the E. Window, walk over and secure weapon and confirm dead in less than a minute.
So the bigger question is how could GN and OS both not only not be on their post but neither received or shared any communication with command (Lentz) from 18:08:20 (LEO first reports “Someone on the Roof” all the way to 18:16:XX when first LEO’s arrive at Crooks body.
3 Likes
He spins around and sits upright and looks at the crowd to the west. They exclaim about it right before the shot occurs.
I doubt he would have tried to pull off a sitting upright cheeked position anyways…sounds hella awkward.
One thing I’ve wondered is if he lost his glasses at shot 9. How bad was his vision, right? He may not have been able to see much once he lost those.
it is not for no reason…
the initial report from the Congressman may be wrong about which shot hit the stock, and I am not the only one who finds it remarkable how that stock got damaged…
if bullet 9 damaged the stock, crooks’ right chin should show serious damage, given the angle from which the SWAT officer took that shot (the bearing between crooks’ line of sight is about 12 degrees off that of the line of fire from the SWAT officer)… so, if shot 9 damaged the stock, the right bottom of crooks’ chin should have gone too…
but if you look at the following picture, it makes much more sense that shot 10 took him and that piece of stock out:
I do not know who fired that round, but in this position, it makes perfect sense that a bullet coming from the rally area leads to an entry wound in front of his left ear, exit wound around the back of his right chin and blowing away the upper rear part of the stock…
given this picture, it looks like he is turning to the crowd, indeed, AND the stock is at a cheeky position, which leads to the observation that bullet 10 makes much more sense to have damaged the stock AND taken out crooks…
this scenario would also explain
- why he was still able to function after he got shot at with bullet 9 (I do not know whether crooks even got injured by this bullet!)
- the long blood trail, as these entry/exit wounds would not have killed him on the spot, but have allowed
- his carotid arteries to pump out vast amounts of blood before he died, and this may also be an explanation
- why the first responders handcuffed him at arrival (no pictures/video of this event, so this is an informed guesstimate):
- if he had not yet bled out sufficiently, they may have observed some signs he was still alive leading to the handcuffing…
as you point out, it was the initial report from the Congressman that mentions shot 9 and the stock.
let’s wait and see whether the final report confirms this, because the damage does not match that bullet if it came from the SWAT officer…
1 Like
Due to YT policies he cannot show the photo he had seen.
Some officers have been punished since they released pictures of the dead body.
true, but we are a month further and we now have seen several of the images that used to be blurred, he…
the big blood trail across his face from under his ear and the pool of blood you see in this last image is very consistent with an injured carotid artery (you can feel your heartbeat/pulse when you put your fingers on this artery) as it is the main blood supply to the brain coming straight from the heart…
1 Like
you should also realize that these reports are not reflections of what really happened, but consensus statements written in such a way that they cover the **ses of the entities that risk getting investigated or sued based on such a report and present you the **ses of those that played their role, are no longer necessary and their elimination smoothens the path towards restoring “trust”…
the wording and nuances and stuff that is not mentioned in these reports are extremely important to notice and identify…
e.g., if you watch the recorded testimony of one of the snipers who was asked how many bullets were fired (I forgot his name, but he looked uncomfortably unhappy while questioned 
), he carefully replied that the report stated that 8 shell casings were recovered from the roof: he did not answer that simple question, but referred to that consensus report that states that 8 casings were found…
life is very simple: if you stick to the report, nobody gets hurt, but if you answer honestly, all hell breaks loose and uncontrollable sh*t hits the fan…
bottom line: none of the reports, testimonies and eye witness reports reflect what really happened. the only thing we can rely on is high resolution audio/visual material that shows the same thing from several angles, and the older and higher resolution the stuff, the better…
2 Likes
I beg to differ with you. I can point out more cases where reports, witness testimony, and video evidence corroborate each other than cases where they don’t. Having done incident investigations as part of my professional career for decades, and having given training and seminars on the subject, plus having a few magazine articles published, I have spent countless hours examining and corroborating evidence. Throwing two of the three categories out because you don’t trust it is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
You don’t have video evidence to tell you everything that happened. Video evidence doesn’t give you all of the radio communications, or the personal accounts. You have to examine all three categories to get the full picture.
Here is an example of comparing reports and radio communications with Nicol’s interview statements. It paint’s a picture of one of the major reasons why Crooks was able to elude law enforcement, if you can even use that term seeing how little notice law enforcement had to find him. Not a single bit of video evidence captures this aspect of the event.
Bottom line, you are doling out bad advice, and I am respectfully posting this to ensure others don’t follow it.
1 Like
it is ok to disagree.
when different sources corroborate a certain event, it is more likely to reflect what really happened, but you should realize that the introduction, conclusion and executive summary of a report are carefully crafted, worded and polished to cover the **ses of certain and guide you to a certain direction…
Scott Adams calls this “the documentary effect” (x.com): If you watch a documentary saying climate change is a crisis, it will look persuasive. If you watch a documentary that claims the opposite, it will also seem persuasive.
The only thing you can learn from a documentary is that documentaries are persuasive.
You can substitute documentary for report, witness statement, testimony, etc, etc…
Best be aware of this effect while reading and listening to whatever information…
A Frayed Mind (The Documentary Effect - A Frayed Mind) summarizes his lessons learned as follows:
Documentaries should come with a warning:
“We have designed this documentary to be as persuasive as possible. When you finish this there will be a profound change in what you believe to be true”.
This is the intended result of the Documentary Effect.
Upon hearing of this from Scott Adams, I realised I had been the victim of this many times over. Documentaries can put us in a cognitively vulnerable state, and like lambs to slaughter, we can be misled about what is true.
The Documentary Effect is what happens after watching a one-sided documentary (or book, article, podcast, etc). We get a comforting feeling of being informed about the subject, but this feeling is often a misplaced one and we may end up less informed than we were before - more on this later.
The Documentary Effect puts us into a state of overconfidence. Experts are testifying, producing indisputable facts left and right with premises leading to undeniable conclusions and it’s hard to imagine they could be wrong. It’s all too convincing.
It’s like that by design.
Considering documentaries are limited by time along with the vast depth of most subjects, it’s inevitable information is going to be omitted. If we’re unfamiliar with the topic we don’t know what is left out - it’s up to the creators to decide.
I have written many of such reports myself, and based on how you describe your professional career, we seem to have similar backgrounds and have been doing similar things over the past years.
I do not throw categories out of the window by default, but I never take things for granted, no matter which organization, committee, institute, title or quality is associated with the author(s)!
as I mentioned earlier, if the story does not fit what has been observed from different angles, there is something wrong with the story, and what I posted earlier about crooks’ injuries and the damage caused by the bullets 9 and 10 makes much more sense than what seems to have been written in the initial report of the Congressman…
1 Like
I think you’re comparing apples and oranges, but I’m not here to debate your point. If you care to see how much care I take in examining evidence, you might find this helpful to see that I not only don’t succumb to the “Documentary Effect,” quite the opposite. I examine every jot and tittle of the those aspects of the Detail Plan. (Note: I’ve yet to see a documentary made before an event occurs. I’m just saying.)
1 Like