There’s so much to the story about Trump’s shooting that simply doesn’t make sense that it’s time to step back and look at it all again.
I have concerns that I am chasing false angles and leads. I worry when things seem ‘too easy’ because if I were trying to lead an investigation astray I’d put a challenging but solvable trail of breadcrumbs leading off in the wrong direction.
When I step back, what occurs to me is how much ‘dead space’ still remains in the narrative. Why haven’t there been any FBI briefings since July 14th? Where are close-up pics of the gun and the exact brand of ammo used? How come nobody is asking any questions at all of the special agent in charge (SAIC) Tim Burke? How was it possible that there were snipers on at least three other roofs that day, but the infamous building 6 was either too slopey or too hot that day?
So perhaps all of the audio evidence leading to the prospect of there being two shooters is all wrong and once it gains traction the FBI will suddenly decide to release AGR security cam footage proving Crooks was the only shooter?
In other words, there’s a chance I’ve been played, and now we have to spend a bit of time looking in the places and directions they have been especially quiet about. Because that’s where the weakest part of the story lies for them.
I wholeheartedly agree! The FIB could reassure the nation and especially the skeptics if they would just be more informative and transparent. “Democracy (and trust) die in darkness.” But the culture of that agency mitigates against that. And they also take agonizingly long to do whatever it is they do. Investigations almost always take years to complete and publicize, or prosecute (except J6 which happened at warp speed for some reason).
Sadly, the last few years have shown us we cannot trust ‘the authorities’ and we cannot trust ‘the science’. Hence, I now fall back on first principles and common sense when evaluating any information. By now, any ‘new’ evidence that comes to light has the potential to have been manipulated, eg AI produced or digitally edited audio/vision files.
Still don’t understand why there was no drone surveillance. How was there not a single drone at this event? Also, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, maybe there was a second shooter trying to take out the secret service team/s. Any evidence to discount this?
Excuse my ignorance as I don’t know guns that well. Going with the model that there were different sounds associated with two different firing positions, if the iron sights were used to allow for the magazine to rest to the side of the rifle, what sight was used if the magazine was vertically aligned? Is this apparent from the photo? If there isn’t one it wouldn’t make sense to rotate the gun. If there were a second iron sight on top, would it confer any advantage to rotate the gun in the first place?
I admire your relentless attempts to make sense of this sh**tshow, Chris. However there’s a 5th possibility that you might want to consider. To me, it explains the let it happen or supposed incompetence on display by the security forces (and the silence that follows): It’s a total false flag, in which Trump is an accomplice - no bullet came near him, he smeared some fake blood on his ear and comes out of the event as a semi-god. If he’d been really grazed by a bullet, he would have bled a LOT more and wouldn’t have stood up right afterwards for the historical photo (as if he knew he wouldn’t be aimed at again). Look at his ear now, not the slightest scar. I hope you will be willing to investigate in this direction- Crooks was just a patsy for those who want to believe that a real assassination was attempted. My 2 cents. Cheers.
Hopefully, one of Grassley’s constituents, or better yet, “someone with some pull,” can get Grassley to ask the questions we are asking. Haul that SAIC guy in front of Congress and ask him the questions we want answers to. Our government is a complete joke; it’s supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people,” but instead, it’s just a bunch of money-hungry inside traders who are hungry for power. One way to stop this nonsense (if we can get everyone to agree with it) is to have a tax strike where absolutely nobody files their taxes until this crap gets straightened out.
Which is the better type of sight? Red dot or iron? Neither is magnified, correct? If the red dot is better then wouldn’t he use this first? It seems like the authorities knew he was there and didnt do anything anyway. It all looked very obvious he was on the roof to the crowd. I understand the sequence could be inverted but why try to conceal yourself after making a lot of noise? Also, why use the less good sight first when the best chance is the first shot.
That was pretty much proven false immediately. Are you telling me he orchestrated the whole thing? Got all the Secret Service and local police to spend many manhours creating a fake ‘play’ and staged Comperatore’s bloody headshot and grieving wife, etc. Have all of the news organizations (that hate him) insert the “thip” of a round breaking the sound barrier past the microphones, except the one that hit Corey, told the hospital he’s coming in with a fake bullet wound, I mean come on, that is the easiest to disprove.
Correct, neither is magnified. “Better” depends on the application and quality of the sights. Assuming both are good gear (as opposed to cheap paintball-grade) and properly sighted, broadly speaking the irons would be slower but more accurate while the red dot would be better for quick shots at close range. In the hands of a competent shooter, either would serve at 140 yards.
What’s a reasonable time frame for the FBI to lay out some basic forensic findings? Seems slow to me but not sure what normal is for an investigation like this. Hard to push back agains the ‘official line’ when they haven’t really established one with evidence besides, “gotta be one shooter right? cuz…”
One could chalk this up to normal bureaucratic slowness, but it strikes me that once they establish an official carefully constructed narrative it engenders more questions. Or perhaps there are people the bureaucracy who are decent enough to not want to put out obviously wrong answers.
Hi Chris. Thanks for the brilliant analyses. Do you know exactly what flash supressor Crooks used? Let’s assume he used the standard DPMS AR-15 “flash hider”. It emits gases out sideways and upwards, not downwards. Therefore the gun powder bang sounds louder sideways and upwards when shooting the gun in 90 degrees position to the ground and less downwards. Now, if Crooks tilted the gun to 0 degrees to the roof he would likely have tilted it with the gun’s upside poiting to his left, in which case the gun powder bang would have sounded louder to the his left 0 degrees to the ground, and more “muffled” to his right than if he fired the gun in 90 degrees to the ground. If Crooks fired shots 1-3 with the gun in 0 degrees to the ground in a left tilted position, it would have made a louder sound to his left than to his right, and would have sounded more “muffled” to the audio recorders on his right, compared to the subsequent shots 4-8, provided he fired them with the gun in 90 degrees to the ground. That assumption sounds a bit strange to me, though, as the first shot would be the most accurate one and with the greatest chance of hitting the target. Therefore, a shooter I believe would prefer the red dot sight over the standard hard metal sight for the first most accurate shot, in which case Crooks would likely have fired the first shot using the red dot sight with the gun in 90 degrees to the ground. Also, The “Crooks shot all 8 shots theory” doesn’t explain the albeit small time difference between the ultra-sonic bangs and the reports of shots 1-3 and shots 4-8 (of ~0,0075 seconds), suggesting the gun that fired shots 1-3, and the gun that fired shots 4-8 were fired at different distances from the taret (Trump), or rather from the microphones closest to Trump. Finally, if there was a second shooter, that shooter does not necessarily have had to have fired through one of the windows, that the latest video suggests were all closed. In theory, at least, a second shooter could have fired through some other hole in the AGR building’s wall, such as a ventilator or other type of cavity.
Has anyone asked the most basic question? Not, " how did he get on the roof, past security?" Not, why he wasn’t detected earlier because he had a range finder. The sole and most important question is, how did he escape surveillance of him once he became a person of suspicion? Let’s get an answer about this
