But I don’t quite understand the differences you are mentioning. Would it be possible to show a screenshot of what you are trying to explain to us?
Now that we know where to look for a second shooter, I have been analysing various web cam videos and it’s funny, every time we get about 10 seconds before shooting, the building 6 walls completely blur out especially the parts that are interesting for us such as vent 3. I really think that we have calculated correctly when looking at the below image…
Thanks. I realize that nothing will convince the Blue-anons, but I reply to them to keep others from being swayed.
I suspect that some “Trump did it” people are paid. While I don’t think these two are bots, I suspect that some “Trump faked it” people on X are bots.
I noticed that when there were clot shot ads on facebook, there would be hundreds of posts that appeared to be bots, all saying something like “my husband and I just got ours yesterday, and we’re so glad” (NEVER any mention of even having a sore arm), or “I going to get mine today!”, then you’d see the REAL comments in the replies. I’ll have to keep an eye on comments for ads for Trump or Harris to see if any Blue-anon bots are working.
The counter sniper that we see on the ground kind of looks like he took the kill shot. We don’t see any recoil, but he’s certainly aiming at Crooks, then right after that shot is fired he takes his rifle down and walks away like he’s satisfied that he’s done his job.
Am I correct that the assumption that one of the first bullets passed close enough to Trump’s ear to cause it to bleed is a CRITICAL assumption in determining possible trajectories for those first shots?
Am I correct that there is no evidence proving, one way or the other, whether or not a bullet caused the bleeding?
Am I correct that implicit ad hominem arguments are being used to distract from my above points?
Am I correct that a proper crime scene investigation allows no such critical assumption to pass unchallenged?
===
I’ve seen “in real time”, and subsequently examined in detail, several such “major events” over the last half century. These investigations often (usually?) get waylaid in the same way, sending detail focused investigators (such as I’ve often been) down rabbit holes that have some critical, but unjustified, assumption at their core, that was needed to open up that rabbit hole.
This tactic doesn’t work in one of my other areas of study, in the logic and set theory foundations of mathematics, where practitioners reliably ensure that every axiom, definition, and theorem on which their work relies is rock solid. Such discipline is much easier to impose in boring backwaters of our studies, where little money or influence is to be had regardless.
But in major operations such as this attempted assassination, beneath which usually lies some of the branches of the Deep State, such critical cracks in the foundations of our extensive and detailed efforts are the norm, not the exception. That we allow this, over and over again, allows the Deep State to get away with such operations, over and over again. I’ve no doubt but that that is why the Deep State routinely pries open just such openings, seeds just such flawed assumptions.
We can do better than that. We must do better than that.
===
I defy any of those here who are annoyed by my persistence to provide proof that Trump’s bloody ear must have been bloodied by a bullet OR to develop a similar study of possible trajectories that no longer assumes any bullet passed all too close to Trump’s ear.
Isn’t it odd that Thomas Crooks traveled over an hour from his residence to Butler, PA, on July 8th—the same day that Beaver County law enforcement met with the U.S. Secret Service at the Butler Farm Show grounds to finalize security details for Trump’s rally? Given that his device activity ceased just before the rally and his presence was detected at the site prior to any public announcement.
Somewhat unclear there, my mistake. The time there refers to the dashcam footage as the title stated. I added the AC article quote there because the information was relevant in conjunction with the dashcam video.
In the dashcam video Thomas Crooks was spotted at 17:04:40 walking near the AGR entrance sign. He came from the direction of Sheetz if looking at the footage, or it is at least a reasonable assumption. If this is the case he should have parked there at Sheetz about 16:50 to 16:55 when considering the average walking speed.
That’s exactly the information I was looking for on both accounts. Thanks! Do you have a full version of the Jon Malis dashcam video? How did you get the timestamp?
That’s fantastic! You just made my day…scratch that, my week. The shadows of the cars made us think it was later in the AM, so I’ll try to find one and calculate it just for extra confirmation, but judging by the street sign shadow it looks right for that time.
As for where he came from, have you seen the video of him at the vendor alley. It’s time stamped at 4:26 pm, and Google Maps shows a 13 minute walk th AGR, not accounting for a Trump rally going on, so that aligns perfectly.
Possibly. He could have seen someone similar looking. However, the text didn’t describe what the person looked like, and as far as I know Woods never publicly stated afterwards it was Crooks he saw. Greg Nicol was quoted in a CNN article saying he didn’t make an “immediate connection” to Crooks, which implies he may have later. Who gave false information was the FBI Deputy Director Abbate, who in his opening statement said local law enforce t spotted the “shooter” at 4:26 PM. Having been sited at the picnic table or not, this timestamp puts him in the area in time for the next sighting in an attendees video.
How do we know it was actually Crooks at the AGR sign on dash cam?
Couldn’t it have been any guy in a gray shirt and light shorts? There was that other ball cap guy. We assumed because of his clothes and the other sightings there, but well, it’s really blurry.
We assumed it was Crooks because we were told it was Crooks and because the pixels were a gray shirt stacked on light shorts…but then we also knew there was a similar looking man at the same place.
I think his gait and proportions are actually recognizable and that it is him, but I just realized that it’s one of the most pixelated pieces of video without additional supporting information(yet).
