What drugs, recreational or prescription, are you using with the booze?
Professional snipers are trained to shoot under intense stress, killing any man is always super stressful!
Why use two snipers, one behind vent 1 and the other behind vent 2? It doesn’t make sense to imagine something so complicated, why not have just one sniper?
Again, nonsense, how can you imagine that a sniper installed in a prone position is obliged to open the ventilation, reposition himself, aim, shoot and close the ventilation, all that in a second! Or there is a second guy who opens and closes the ventilation, it is completely inept!
Phiphi, this discussion could go back and forth forever—you believe snipers never miss, while I maintain that snipers can miss in certain high-stress situations.
The difference between you and me is that I have provided evidence to support my claims—something I have yet to see from your side. I challenge you to present any type of evidence that disproves anything I have stated in our joint analysis. As you know, I am willing to revise the content if proof is presented, just as I did when you pointed out that the silencer was not the only one, and I corrected my statement accordingly.
Yes, and if we look closely, there appears to be splatter on this guy’s shirt.
This would confirm two things:
- The shot struck Corey on the left side of the head.
- The splatter is visible before shots 4–8 occur (based on frame counts), meaning the only possible shot responsible is shot 3.
This is definitely something worth investigating further.
1 Like
Those aren’t splatters, they’re wrinkles in his shirt!
Yes they can miss once, rarely twice but never three times in a row!
You’re going to tell me that each sniper only fired one shot and there was two maybe three snipers and we come back to the last two points in my message to which you don’t respond as usual because it bothers you.
You present no evidence, it’s just speculation!
Let’s stay focused on the facts. Here is a gif animation taken from a first-hand video which is evidence—one of the strongest forms of proof, regarded as direct and highly persuasive—which confirms that shot 3 came from vent 1. This has also been confirmed by members of this forum (@kincses-zsolt).
Do you have any evidence that disproves this video?
Could you reply to the first part of my message?
Just because you see a white spot for a moment on the wall doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a gunshot, it could be an artifact in the video or anything else!
I’m not referring to his wrinkles, but rather to the red spots on his shirt.
1 Like
I am not simply telling you something, I am presenting the facts that lead to that assumption.
Why two shooters from the vents? The bullet traced back from the bleachers corner, passing through Trump’s ear, leads to Vent 2. There was also dynamic activity from Vent 2 shortly before the shooting—something I have not yet shared, but will. Unfortunately, Vent 2 is obscured by a post in the body-cam video, making it impossible to see what is happening there during shots 1 and 2.
However, Vent 1 is visible in the same body-cam footage for all three shots. It is not open during shots 1 and 2, but opens exactly as I describe for shot 3.
Chris has proven through his audio analysis that the buffered shots without echoes are definitely different from shots 4 through 8. Therefore, now that we have found video evidence relating to Vent 1, this supports the above-mentioned assumptions.
Ok so it’s an assumption not an evidence!
There isn’t definitive evidence that shots 1 and 2 came precisely from Vent 1, but there is substantial evidence pointing to that area.
Shot 3, however, is supported by first-hand video evidence and is clearly not an artifact.
I trust what I can see. Dismissing this as an “artifact” fits the pattern of gaslighting—an attempt to make someone doubt their own sight, perception, or judgment.
If you want to discredit this GIF, you’ll need to present more convincing evidence. The burden of proof is on you!
You’re pathetic. You’re the one trying to prove that there were two sniper teams (one shooter plus an assistant to open and close the vents) behind vents 1 and 2 based on a white spot appearing in a video for a split second, and I’d have to be the one to prove you’re wrong, when simple common sense, which you seem completely lacking, shows that all this is absurd!
It’s true that you can’t make a donkey drink if it isn’t thirsty!
1 Like
Good catch.
chatgpt said it could be blood or mud. However, it is not a muddy wrestling show, People wore clean cloths. It cannot be sweating either. The middle of the blobs is wet. At the sides the blood penetrated into the cloth.
Dr Sweetland:
Corey had a gunshot wound just above his ear.
GRAPHIC CONTENT
I think it could not be the exit wound, must be the entrance.
But it raises another question.
1 Like
Once I collected footages where Copenhaver can be seen:
Absolutely.
I try to identify those persons.
Oh, years ago I saw night vision blood splatters, must find.
Background people all look to Corey.
Well, I’m back from a vacation from Hell.
Bedbugs can ruin a vacation.
Also, the notebook computer I took bricked itself within about 30 minutes the first time I tried to use it. From then on, I was using cell phones.
But, two family members (hubby and “kid” one) set foot in Texas for the first time, and the younger “kid” (legally an adult) is very happy she opted to stay home.
3 Likes
A recent post mentioned Javascript.
What concerns me is this:
function A(c,p,s,l,w,d,m,x){
with(document.f){
tv=eval(‘q’+w+‘.value’);
nms=0;
xha[c][p][s]=nms;
if(tv<5){
cps[c][p][s]=0;
cpx[c][p][s]=0;
document.getElementById(“xqr”).innerHTML=dnp+“:”;
}else if(parseInt(tv)>m){
t.value=m;
cps[c][p][s]=m;
cpx[c][p][s]=x;
}else{
cps[c][p][s]=parseInt(tv);
cpx[c][p][s]=x;
}
ptt=0;
tpt=0;
ptx=0;
phs=c+‘!’+p+‘!’+pU[c]+‘!’+pN[c][p]+‘!’;
for(k=0;k<l;k++){
sip=(k<l-1)?“:”:“”
pdq=pS[c][p][k]+‘=’+cps[c][p][k]+‘=’+cpx[c][p][k]+‘=’+xha[c][p][k];
psq=cps[c][p][k];
phs+=(pdq+sip);
ptt+=psq;
tpt+=psq;
ptx+=psq*pP[c][p][k];
}
pc[c][p]=ptx;
phs+=‘!’;
phs+=pc[c][p];
pt[c][p]=tpt;
tct=0;
ptc=0;
for(y=0;y<pS[c].length;y++){
ptc+=pc[c][y];
tct+=pt[c][y];
}
cc[c]=ptc;
txh=0;
tfd=0;
asx=0;
fvu=0;
for(w=0;w<cpx.length;w++){
fvu+=cc[w];
for(x=0;x<cpx[w].length;x++){
for(z=0;z<cpx[w].length;z++){
if(cpx[w][z]>asx){
asx=cpx[w][z];
}
txh+=xha[w][z];
tfd+=cps[w][z];
}
}
}
hpg[q]=asx;
phx[q]=txh;
gsx=0;
xht=0;
for(ix=0;ix<hpg.length;ix++){
if(hpg[ix]>gsx){
gsx=hpg[ix];
}
xht+=phx[ix];
}
px=(gsx>1)?pv2[ci0]:(gsx>0)?pv1[ci0]:0;
if(ogt==0&&(tv<5&&fvu==0||q==30)){
hpc=0;
}else{
hpc=pv0[ci0]+px;
}
stt.value=M(fvu);
hpf.value=M(hpc);
xhf.value=M(xht);
tvu=xht+hpc+fvu+ogt;
gtf.value=M(tvu);
phs=(ptt>0)?phs:“”;
eval(‘p’+d+‘.value=phs’);
eval(‘d’+d+‘.value=M(pc[c][p])’);
}
dnw=(tfd==1)?dns+" :“:dnp+”:“;
if(tfd>0&&q<23){
document.getElementById(“xqr”).innerHTML=tfd+” "+dnw;
}
}
rq=0;
itv=0;
function P(e,i,q,x){
wv=(document.all)?window.event:e;
kc=wv.keyCode;
if(kc==13){
Q(i,q,x);
}
}
function Q(i,q,x){
tq=eval(“document.f.q”+i+“.value”);
tq=(tq==“”)?0:parseInt(tq);
if(tq<1&&q>0||tq==5&&q<0){
q*=5;
}
if((q>0&&tq<x)||(q<0&&tq>0)){
tq+=q;
tq=(tq<1)?“”:tq;
eval(“document.f.q”+i+“.value=tq”);
if(rq>0){
clearTimeout(itv);
}
rq++;
sI(i,q,x);
}
}
EDIT:
I simplified:
function A(w){
with(document.f){
tv=eval(‘q’+w+‘.value’);
}
}
and the event handlers for functions A, P, Q, and cI are:
<input type=“button” class=“d” onkeypress=“P(event,0,-1,99)” onmousedown=“Q(0,-1,99)” onkeyup=“cI(0,1);A(0)” onmouseup="cI(0,1);A(0)