The guy with the red shirt running is not Stewart.
roger claims to support the multiple shooter theory, yet denies evidence(like dozens of extra gunshots in Dayveâs audio, and Copenhaver so obviously hit with shots 1 and 3) that crushes that the lone gunman theory.
Everyone posting in this thread is being paid to promote the lone gunman theory.
I used two visual cues to align the two videos:
-
Officer Tylerâs foot being lifted (your suggestion)
-
Dayve Stewert running along the fenceline and reaching the gate. Since he was moving quickly, this was a good cue to use.
Here is the result:
So, the âvent flashâ begins 0.413 seconds ahead of the boom, and that is 0.053 seconds sooner than when we would expect to see a muzzle flash. However, since you have now changed your explanation from muzzle flash to flashlight, Iâm guessing youâll say thatâs perfectly reasonable?
Unbelievable. Iâm pretty sure if I was tucked away in a secret snipers nest I would not be shining a spotlight out from it. Iâm done with you.
1 Like
Actually I donât think it is possible to shoot through the closed flaps, so they must have been opened prior the shots.
But the bigger problem is, someone was careless/negligent and left open the possibility to the shooter to conquer the highground. What we really should do, to find either intentional information leeaking, or the shooter was coerced somehow. I know it is most possibly the dreamworld to proove that. But never say never.
The other possibility is terrifying, as I pointed it before.
Oh yee. There is another âsky high IQâ outcast - lone wolf.
But I try to guess what Bongino will answer to this problem:
I cannot see the rifle inside those pants. So maybe they will say: oh pardon, this footage was actually made two days before when he went to recon the buildings. And these pictures were released just because the face is more recognizable.
Or maybe they wonât say anything.
Cullen said: do not use the same trick twice.
Bonaparte said: do not fight against the same enemy too often - you will teach them your art of warfare.
By the way, my father had an air rifle. But I donât think I was able to hide it in my pants.
1 Like
I disagree with your comment. I update my view when credible evidence is presented. That is the rule of this forum: analyze, provide proof, and revise when counter-evidence is shown. @greg_n demonstrated that a muzzle flash lasts only a few milliseconds, so I corrected my statement. If everyone approached the discussion objectively and accepted solid evidence when presented, we would reach the truth much faster â which should be the shared goal of everyone here. I hope this applies to you as well.
2 Likes
âŚin a courtroom with judge and jury:
- Hercules2Eastâs statement of endless suppressed gunshots would expose evidence of elevated shooters Northeast
- the rail impact, 1/4 second early, and 45° offcourse would supplement item 1. above
- audio and firearms experts would tell the jury what guns were being fired in the 90 seconds before Trumpâs ear(and Copenhaverâs arm)
- The legal statement of Copenhaver and Dutch would be read, but the jury already would know Copenhaver was hit with Shots 1 and 3, after watching 2 seconds of the MJTruthUltra video(shown by NBC 15 October) and everyone would see that Crooks was 35 meters east/southeast of the real shooter.
- the 5 fast shots would be proven by a courtfull of witnesses to have been nowhere near Copenhaver, so your dream of any of those shots hitting JC would end
- photo experts would prove at least 6 other people on the rooftops
- Letâs get this on daytime TV
1 Like
Iâve been missing my paychecks!
As best as I can tell, there had to be have been at least two firearms, and a 95% chance there were at least three. I say âfirearmsâ because Iâm not discounting the idea that one or more were operated remotely.
3 Likes
I didnât know paychecks still existedâŚbut it would help if you could agree with, âattorneys for both men say this [2 seconds of] video shows them getting shot.â
Also, Tyler Collinsâ bodycam frames contain at least 4 people on a far west roof, or treeâŚof course they look âcartoonââŚif images are too far from the camera lens, all faces become cartoon pixelatedâŚsomeone must have more experience than me in recognizing faces from pixelsâŚ
Yes Roger, itâs well known: itâs not the weather vane that turns, itâs the wind!
Hopefully this will work for you. Itâs John McCollough.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xQ_gOuT9qLUr0fxrU8HiYxTtnzNwpBiV?ths=true
2 Likes
And actually this is the title: Back To First Principles
(Well, instead of numerical values - there are three categories shown here.)
Who thinks the individual alone - without any aid, instruction, information; without military training - was able to access the vantage point? (There are further questions.)
Our inherited stategic thinking is principally grounded on Bayesian Inference. Even we donât aware of it, or we never heared about it either. This is how our brain works, intuitively calculates probabilities based on former knowledge, experience.
But what some people miss is: update the beliefs on new information. They stuck, insist to have an unchanged idea.
Yes, our brains are naturally Bayesian to a large extent. Weâre wired to make predictions and decisions based on prior experiences (priors), and we constantly take in new data (evidence) to improve those predictions. This mechanism helps us survive, learn, and adapt in an uncertain world.
But hereâs the twist, which you rightly highlight:
Many people fail at the updating step.
They form beliefs (priors), but resist updating them when presented with new, contradictory evidence. Why?
1. Belief Inertia (Cognitive Dissonance)
Changing oneâs belief means admitting: âI was wrong.â Thatâs uncomfortable. So the brain protects itself from dissonance by discounting the new evidence instead of updating the belief.
2. Confirmation Bias
We instinctively look for evidence that supports what we already believe and ignore what contradicts it. Thatâs Bayesian in reverse â reinforcing priors without fair treatment of evidence.
3. Social Identity
Sometimes, beliefs arenât just ideas â theyâre social badges. Changing them means potentially losing tribe membership, respect, or connection. So people cling to old ideas not because theyâre accurate, but because theyâre safe.
4. Overconfidence in Priors
If a prior belief is strong enough (due to repetition, emotion, or authority), it can outweigh even a large amount of contradictory evidence. This leads to under-updating.
The True Bayesian Mindset
The real strength of Bayesian thinking isnât just in forming beliefs â itâs in adapting them.
âStrong opinions, loosely held.â
Thatâs the ideal. Be willing to stand for what you believe, until new evidence suggests you shouldnât.
Seems gone. Disposed, discarded.
This strongly supports my belief - when evidences cannot be hidden, additional distracting evidences must be inserted - to confuse the investigation.
I hope he had adequate measures for the investigation. (Well, I should not reveal what I think right now. But I hope he knows what to do.)
** https://youtu.be/33N6iRGh5DE
I hope they wonât rush to execute him quickly. Most possibly he is not the real shooter - but at least his rifle was involved. He could reveal a hell lot - what we donât know yet. But some people might want to eliminate asap.
Oh, by the way - in my country smart detectives donât rush to accuse anyone. Guess why. Self incrimination. Witness not allowed to lie or keep silent.
sorry, i cannot resist
2 Likes
@sonjax6 Thank you so much â all of the videos are really interesting. Theyâll give me plenty to analyze.
In return, hereâs a video you might not have seen before (at least I hadnât, and just came across it by chance). It shows John McCollough filming the video you shared.
1 Like
I notice your deflect on the accusation of âeveryoneâ getting paid to shill the lone nutter theory. No problem, a lot of people slip into saying âeveryoneâ these days.
Yes, the video does clearly say that the attorneys claim that short video showed both of them being shot.
Itâs also REALLY notable that the FBI has never tried to put together a timeline of what shots hit whom or what. They know they are between a rock and hard place - if they say Mr. Copenhaver was hit with shots 1 and 3, then there is the obvious problem of the shot on the railing. If they say he was hit with bullets 4 and 8 (for example) then they have pinned themselves down with a lie thatâs much easier to prove.
1 Like
That transcript is still on the Senate HSGAC website, page 57
They just hope people wonât notice it.
1 Like
Thanks. That was good enough I rotated my monitor and took some screen grabs.
Itâs mostly good for looking at the reactions of the rallygoers and Nick Menster, but I am very interested that.
The rallygoers on the left side of the bleachers donât seem to realize the sounds were shots until after the third shot, for the most part - and a LOT of that realization may from the fact that Mr. Trump stopped talking and then hit the deck.
Thatâs doesnât fit well with the hypothesis that the telehandler shot came from the north north-east and basically snaked between the north and center bleachers.
Of course, we DO have a counter example of ONE guy WITH good reaction time who was surrounded by slugs: the youngish campaign staffer who was directing the photographers:
The most common version of the caido/rodrick video is cropped and degraded quality, BTW.
At least âeveryoneâ got your attention, and a response.
Everyone may have his or her own motive. If motive is selling books, high tech theories(drones, robotic weapons, self-healing glass) may help sales.
Were you able to install ffmpeg in Windows?
The 30f/s video you call âmcculloughâ has some pixelated faces in 8 framesâŚand it has one pixelated face SMOKED AWAY with the Clone Stamp toolâŚis cloning a face out of 8 frames a type of âdegradationâ, or do you think itâs âenhancementâ?
That could haunt them for hundreds of years.
Sean Davis on Tucker(January) said âthose shots all were way up highâ, and I guess he knows Shot 6 hit CoreyâŚcan you write a book about just those 5 shots?
