OK, it look’s like Peak Prosperity doesn’t want to upload photos wider than 1920 pixels. If you are interested, please find them - they should be available with a DuckDuckGo search using images filtered to “large” size. You may have to play around with the search words.
I meant 2:50, not 2:40. 4:54 is one second before shots start.
Baldy may be that early in my Dayve version, but only the top of his head… and I mean 1/2 of each eyeball…and he’s smoking so much, he could be vaping in those frames.
1 Like
Because the 3 shots were well clear, West, of the north bleacher crowd, well clear of the center crowd, and maybe most in South bleachers had put their phones away to watch TV.
I made a page just of ‘sitemaps’ at my website, and think I can add any reasonable size.
It could be interesting to see where Wall Street Journal, New Zealand Herald, and National Public Radio showed the ‘gunman’ location.
I’ll add some of your maps soon:
https://superfly.co.nz/j13/Butler_Farm_sitemaps.htm
1 Like
Yes, I would like to repeat my perspective:
Assuming this was a well-coordinated operation, the shooter(s) would have needed some form of evidence confirming Crooks’ presence—particularly in case no one from the audience witnessed him or if he managed to escape afterward. In such a scenario, having an alibi proving Crooks was on-site would be critical. This makes the individuals who first reported seeing Crooks—namely Woods and Nicol—particularly significant suspicious.
Jason Woods was the lead sharpshooter that day. The fact that he left his post approximately 40 minutes before Trump was scheduled to speak, and then, while exiting, sent a message identifying Crooks inside the grounds, raises serious concerns. It simply does not pass the smell test.
Further casting doubt are the contradictory statements between Woods and Murcko: Woods claims he returned to his post, while Murcko states he never saw him again after he “officially” left.
There is currently no definitive proof of whether Woods stayed or left. Perhaps this aspect of the timeline will become clearer as our investigation progresses.
2 Likes
That’s a good point.
3 Likes
If I were the FBI, the owner of the Alpha and the boots guy would be tracked down. Despite 2023 Chirstmas video, AGR’s “long hair” CEO does not appear on 2024 Happy Christmas video. I mean formerly long hair guy. (The president of Inc. appears instead. And, since it is AGR International, I can hear some foreign accent. So maybe there are employees abroad.) So we cannot check if he have had a haircut in july. Further more, the baggy pants guy does not appear.
They didn’t delete the 2023 video. Why?
@sonjax6
(It reminds me when a policeman saw someone inside the textbook warehouse and later he testified he had seen Oswald.)
Additionally, the three snipers were parking in the east lot. How Woods was concern about the bike around the western parking lot.
I should re-check Nicol’s testimony, too.
À la recherche du temps perdu / looking for the suspect’s car
1 Like
Yes, we’re beginning to align. Trying to trace the trajectory of the first shot to include Copenhaver (along with Trump’s ear and the impact on the bleacher corner) is simply not feasible.
Having received the original video footage from @kincses-zsolt, we can clearly observe that Copenhaver’s arm movement appears to be a typical instinctive reaction — retracting from the bullet that passed by. A similar reaction is visible in the young girl positioned between Copenhaver and TOB. She reacts even faster, likely due to her younger age and quicker reflexes.
As for Copenhaver’s claim in the interview that he was hit by the first shot: can we really expect him to accurately recall the sequence of events that occurred within five seconds, especially while in shock? He was carried out immediately afterward. This is precisely why I tend to avoid relying on eyewitness testimony in such high-stress scenarios. It’s very likely that he later watched the video and, based on what he saw, concluded that the first shot was the one that struck his arm.
In contrast, the theory that shots 4 through 8 resulted in two injuries to Copenhaver is far more plausible — particularly now that we’ve identified bullet impacts on the banner near his position.
Regarding the origin of shots 4 through 8: personally, I’m not certain, as we lack a second reference point to triangulate from. Your suggestion that they may have come from the trees remains entirely possible.
1 Like
My problem is that the shots and reactions overlap. So called convolution. Due to the rapid shooting we cannot separate (easily) the events.
1 Like
Does anyone remember the videos in which someone used animations to reconstruct the movement profiles of the police forces involved and the corresponding radio messages?
Where can these videos be found?
Copenhaver’s sequence was within less than 2 seconds.
My simple theory is that Copenhaver was the only one shot twice, because he was standing directly behind(downrange of) the target(Trump).
When Trump went down, the target was down.
Here’s a high stress scene, not a scenario:
Copenhaver’s abdomen is hit with the bullet you call Shot 3.
Why, exactly, do you need to persist in denying Copenhaver’s 2 gunshots in the first 1.5 seconds?
Is AGR’s 2023 Christmas video on AGR’s X page, or somewhere else that you’ve seen it?
I saw Milt Sutsa give the 18 second 2024 greeting on AGR’s youtube page.
From the evidence gathered so far, the situation appears relatively clear:
Shot Breakdown
- Shot 1: Originates from ARG building 6, Grazes Trump’s ear – hits the top rail bleachers corner .
- Shot 2: Injures David Dutch.
- Shot 3: Originates from Vent 1 – hits Camparatore, narrowly misses Trump, strikes the bar behind the banner, and finally impacts a hydraulic pipe. Forensic analysis confirms this was a .308 caliber round, indicating that Crooks could not have fired this shot; only a larger-caliber weapon could have caused that level of damage.
- Shots 4–8: Appear to be random; Copenhaver is hit twice, with one bullet remaining lodged in his body. Three other impact points are found on a nearby banner.
- Shot 9: Zaliponi shoots and injures Crooks.
- Shot 10: A sniper neutralizes Crooks.
Motive Analysis
Shots 1–3:
The motivation here is clear: they were intended to kill Trump. These rounds appear to have been fired from high-caliber, precision rifles – weapons far superior to Crooks’s AR-15.
Shots 9–10:
Again, the motives are straightforward: neutralize Crooks.
Shots 4–8: The Ambiguity
These shots are more puzzling. If Trump was already down and covered by bodyguards, why continue shooting?
One hypothesis is that the shooter (likely different from the one who fired shots 1–3) used an AR-15-style rifle to fire indiscriminately at the group of bodyguards, attempting to hit Trump through the pile. However, this theory doesn’t hold, since none of the individuals in that pile were injured. Instead, Copenhaver, who was positioned much higher up in the top row, was hit.
This leads to a more strategic theory.
A Possible Cover-Up Operation
If the attack was a coordinated plan, the shooters using high-caliber sniper rifles for shots 1–3 would know that their impacts would not match the ballistic signature of an AR-15. Thus:
- Shots 4–8 may have been fired by an accomplice with an AR-15 to contaminate the crime scene, introducing bullets that could be falsely attributed to Crooks.
- Copenhaver’s injuries may have been intentional, providing a physical body with a recoverable AR-15 round.
- This would allow for plausible deniability, with authorities possibly attributing all shots (including shot 3) to Crooks.
- If someone could claim that shot 3 was found in Copenhaver’s body, it would conveniently shift the blame for the sniper shot from the real shooter at Vent 1 to Crooks.
Conclusion
Therefore, the real purpose of shots 4–8 may not have been to kill but to create forensic confusion – planting AR-15 caliber rounds to mask the origin and intent of the high-powered sniper shots. This would serve as an elaborate method to falsely incriminate Crooks, despite clear ballistic and trajectory evidence to the contrary.
1 Like
Good Lord, you’re right!
You have blown their cover all to smithereens. It’s simple enough anyone can understand it. Is this your original epiphany, or has this been circulating?
This SHOULD be highlighted in the followup to the “Who Shot Trump?” movie.
1 Like
If “Shot 3”…"hits Comp"eratore, how was Comperatore able to continue recording Shots 4,5,6,7,8?
Your assumptions (indeed, they are only assumptions, even though you present them as established facts) are far too complicated.
If any organization had wanted to kill Trump, all it would have needed was to recruit a professional sniper who, at such close range, would have definitely hit his target, especially if he had three attempts, even using an AR15!
Crooks missed Trump because he wasn’t a sniper and must have been shaking like a leaf on his overheated roof!
3 Likes
How do you know Murcko’s radio message recipients included Secret Service personnel at the stage?
Also, after looking at your sitemaps, I think that Fox may have used the phone recording of another phone owner south and west of Copenhaver.
I pasted in Fox’s alleged phoneview North, and painted a green line from North to South, ending with a south bleacher spot that looks close to…
Dutch…maybe Dutch’s phone got better views of the roof runners.
Also, it’s not easy to see pictures of Dutch recording, but I found one, with a ‘beige’ phone held just under his nose.
1 Like
What is your source for that?
2 Likes