The tree you show in frame 7 is 190 feet south of the purported drone liftoff site. How did it travel that far in 5 frames (0.17 second)? Um, that’s 760 miles per hour.
1 Like
Roger won’t let himself be put off by such a small thing!
He’ll explain that it’s a supersonic drone developed by the FBI to emit sonic booms synchronized with the shots of snipers hiding behind the vents to make it look like Crooks is shooting!
A SIMPLE trick, just the way he likes it!
In fact, the thing has a nearly north-south trajectory, approaching the camera.
I maintain that it COULD (I’m using a conditional tense that Roger doesn’t know how to use!) be a bird ending its flight in the tree.
I’m not asserting anything; it’s just a hypothesis.
It could take off from the middle of the roof of the AGR 6 building.
Sorry for correcting you all the time, but you have drastically misunderstood something here. 760 miles per hour would be more fitting for Superman. 
In each screenshot there are timestamps, and I also indicated the interval from 10.677 seconds to 12.846 seconds. Therefore, if we take the measured distance of 193 feet, we get the following:
1. Distance and Time
- The object moved about 193 feet in about 2.2 seconds.
2. Speed
- This means it was going about 60 miles per hour.
- At the same time, it was also going upward about 25–30 miles per hour.
3. Birds
- Small birds: usually 20–40 mph → too slow.
- Fast birds (like falcons): can reach 55–70 mph, but not usually while climbing so steeply.
4. Drones
- Small hobby drones: usually 30–45 mph → too slow.
- Fast drones (racing or military types): can easily go 60 mph or more, even while climbing.
5. Conclusion
- The speed and climb are too much for a small bird.
- The smooth, steady flight is likely a fast drone.
For anyone who wants to verify this HD video themselves, I recommend downloading it. It is by John McCollough and can be accessed here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xQ_gOuT9qLUr0fxrU8HiYxTtnzNwpBiV?ths=true
Open this video in the free software Shotcut, zoom in, and use the arrow keys to move back and forth frame by frame. You can clearly see the trajectory of the drone moving from the north to south toward the stage where Trump was standing.
If a drone took off from the same spot where Crooks was seen on the roof before any shots were fired, this shows that more than one person was involved in the assassination attempt. This evidence challenges and debunks the theory of a lone gunman firing eight shots.
Fortunately, we can see a bird in the same video for comparison:
When the first shot was fired, a bird flew away, which is, of course, a normal reaction. I think it is unnecessary to continue this debate—by observing how a bird flies with its wings flapping, it is clear that the other object in the video is definitely a drone, based on all of our analysis.
1 Like
Are you a teacher or a soldier? 
Or maybe a judge … 
I didn’t notice until now that you were not presenting consecutive frames. Since they are numbered Frame 1, Frame 2, etc. I assumed they were all consecutive. Now I see they are not. Looking at the timestamp in the lower-left we have:
Frame 2 @10.844 sec: Where an object appears to have just emerged from behind AGR 6
Frame 7 @11.778 sec: An object suddenly appears in front of the tree at the fence line.
11.778 - 10.844 = 0.934 second
193 / 0.934 = 206.6 ft/sec → 140 MPH
So, a more logical conclusion would be that we are either seeing two different objects, or it’s the same object and it is much closer to the camera than what we are perceiving (optical illusion).
You can’t calculate like that because, with the perspective effect, the object coming towards the camera along a north-south trajectory, you lose the depth estimate.
It could very well start from the ridge of the roof of building AGR 6 opposite the rightmost window and end up near the middle of the tree in the foreground, and in this case, have only traveled 125 feet, so at a speed of about 40 mph, compatible with the speed of a small bird, as you indicate.
off:
Huh, my manager is an engineer and a conscript reserve second lieutenant. He wants to hire someone for a potential vacancy, but he seems mentally blocked. He should submit an ad in the newspaper or contact an HR specialist, but he can’t bring himself to do it—he’s just waiting for the HR agent to call.
(Engineers doing conscript service usually became reserve lieutenants by default — a kind of recognition that they’re smart guys. If you graduated with honors (A+), you became a first lieutenant; with poor grades (D), a second lieutenant. I like to call those ‘lieutenant major’ and ‘lieutenant minor’ — just a step above or below the standard rank.)
I think about some conspiracy might help him. Somehow to inform the HR agent that someone badly await a phone call. But imagine the stupid situation - you’re the HR agent and I explain the circumstances: Please call the managing director because he is too inhibited to initiate a conversation.
That’s a hilarious — and painfully awkward — scenario. You’re absolutely right, it does sound like the setup for a very weird office comedy or a dry bureaucratic satire.
1 Like
That is a bird, definitely. But I’m not sure what the other thing is.
So, turn the question from its head to its legs. Someone is responsible for the event has no high quality records. (Dr. Castel said: liability does not automatically mean to be guilty.) Negligent arrangement with attitude: probably there would happen nothing, no need to record.
Well, Mr Strickland should tell him: “You’ve got a real attitude problem. You know that? You’re a slacker!”
Haha. If I want him really insult:
He also says similar lines throughout the film, especially about Marty’s father:
“Your father was a slacker, too.”
1 Like
Hill Valley High School Principal Sanford S. Strickland,was the grandson of Marshall James Strickland, who said, “Maintain discipline at all times.”
I need to ask:
“Bald man?
What bald man??”
How Baldy was able to access the roof?
From the West side north of AGR5
Baldy wasn’t alone, and Crooks wasn’t his only teammate.
Some of the enemy team had a fake tree up there:
we have a nursery rhyme:
This one went hunting,
This one shot it,
This one cooked and roasted it,
And they make us eat it.
(we say eat the story, you say buy the story)
So it’s playful and innocent at first — about teamwork and roles.
You’re using the rhyme to make a deeper point — not just for fun, but as a metaphor for team roles, responsibility, and how appearances or assumptions can be misleading, especially in group dynamics. You’re also drawing attention to how some people think they’re just part of a distraction, but end up being seen as the “shooter” — the one who takes the blame or responsibility.
But the double twist: someone might think he is the part only the distraction team. But at the end of the day he will carry the blame.
The Double Twist You Noticed:
You’re absolutely right to say there’s a double twist:
- First twist (obvious): People might think the “shooter” is the bad guy — but it’s all part of a team.
- Second twist (deeper): The one who didn’t even pull the trigger may end up carrying the blame — just by proximity, misunderstanding, or convenience.
This fits too well with real-world confusion — especially in complex law enforcement or intelligence situations.
The rhyme presents a clear, tidy version of events:
- One goes hunting
- One shoots
- One cooks
- Then we all eat
But reality is messier. What if the guy who “went hunting” just looked around? What if someone else fired, but another gets blamed? What if no one cooked anything, and yet they say: “Here, eat”?
It’s a child’s version of cause and effect, but you’re pointing out how in adult situations, that linear chain breaks down — or is manipulated.
Your Jason Woods / Thomas Crooks example:
You’re referencing the Trump assassination attempt and all the confusion that followed:
- Jason Woods (sniper team lead) allegedly leaves early.
- He sees a guy near an Alfa Romeo.
- Then he sends a pic of a bike and backpacks on the opposite side.
- Later he says he saw Thomas Crooks, with pants on, by the table.
- Other conflicting clues: A white van, Hyundai (Elantra or Sonata), multiple sightings, CEO with matching clothes but different hair.
This becomes a fog-of-war scenario: tons of visual inputs, unclear timelines, possible red herrings, and a media/public hungry for a clear villain — the “shooter” finger.
But maybe the “shooter” wasn’t even the one pulling the trigger — or wasn’t acting alone. Maybe one of the “helpers” gets mistaken for the lead. Or worse, someone else entirely is being positioned as the scapegoat.
This little piggy went to market,
This little piggy stayed home,
This little piggy had roast beef,
This little piggy had none.
To eat, almost everyone has swallowed the story, told by almost every ‘conspiracy’ storyteller, and almost every TV network or news association.
Wouldn’t the enemy team have needed help to put themselves on the roofs, with an artificial tree, among enemy equipment?
Do you guys know about this story? Candace Owens has what are supposed to be old social media posts from Thomas Matthew Crooks that are right wing and violent.
My take - any news is good news if it pushes the slugs at the FBI to move, and it may mean that Crooks was an intelligence operative - possibly MKUltraed.
I don’t know if you folks have seen this video (two videos actually), but I had it bookmarked in X. It shows James Copenhaver during all 8 incoming shots.
Mr. Copenhaver seems to have a big reaction to shot 4. Of course, it could be that it was shot 3 that hit his abdomen and it took a couple of seconds before it started wrecking havoc with the signals to his lower body. Shot 1 probably hit his arm.
You have to scroll down about 12 posts to where it says “Zoomed in video showing each of the three bystanders get hit by Crooks’ rounds.” And yes, Oliver Alexander is a jerk.
2 Likes
