Thank you very much for the photos! Great job on the clarity!
3 Likes
Another good find!
3 Likes
In this post and the thread above it, @evans_coons and @SteelMagsTwit have demonstrated that Crooks did in fact fire shots 1-3. Kudos! This 0.25 speed stabilized video by Coons IS the “smoking gun,” literally. If you watch closely, you can see the recoil and the ejected casing.
https://x.com/evan_coons/status/1861479933546991949
Damn, wrong link. This should be the slower version.
2 Likes
I know I’ve seen at least stills of if not some video version of this shot and casing ejection, but this is by far the best quality of it I’ve seen! Thank you for sharing this! I saw mention of them not being sure which shot of the first 3 this actually was, do you know if ever they came to a conclusion on that?
1 Like
I haven’t finished watching the 200+ playlist…
Trump Rally Shooting! Never seen before! Aftermath!
sheriff
water tower
cs
180
2 Likes
Nonsense. It just shows that Crooks couldn’t have fired blanks.
His ammunition may have had real projectiles, but it may also have had rubber projectiles that only flew 80 meters.
1 Like
I thought it was the first shot. Steel Magnolia says the first two were captured in the clip and that discussion is above the videos in the thread.
1 Like
This information is already 3 months old.
People can try to guess where Nicol was, but his statements were only summarized, likely to allow for covering things up. Those of you that have looked at the JFK assassination know that Gerald Ford was tasked with “moving” the bullet hole in JFK’s back upward so it would be more consistent with a bullet that traveled from the 6th floor of the book depository, through Kennedy’s back, out through his throat. Ford ADMITTED this. And he apparently was rewarded most handsomely, indeed.
We’re all armchair quarterbacks trying to decipher what’s going on based on very limited, and in some cases, false, data. We’ve been putting up with 4 1/2 months of stonewalling from the Secret Service and the FBI, mostly getting only a few tidbits from whistleblowers and a few genuine shockers like the testimony from the Hercules 2 sniper that he and his partner thought there were shots passing between them.
In less than 60 days, Lord willing, Donald Trump will become president, and there will be friendly people at the heads of the Secret Service and the FBI. Yes, it’s likely that one or more key people will be missing or dead by then. But those will be valuable clues in themselves.
We’ll actually get transcripts of Nicol and Murcko being grilled about where they were (if they aren’t suicided first), we’ll see where the bullets and fragments wound up, hopefully we’ll see the angle from which the victims received their wounds, and we should see about 4 times as many videos as we have seen to date.
We’ll find out who threw out the local guy from the Secret Service meeting on the morning of July 13, who decided nobody in the Secret Service would show up to the local coordinating meeting, who declined the use of a local drone, who decided not to pick up local radios.
We’ll get to see the results of all the Hercules snipers being grilled very closely about why it never occurred to them to tell the Mr. Trump’s detail to get him off the stage. Was this never discussed in training?
Hopefully they will track down the people who heard shots from behind the stage. And hopefully the stage and bleachers will be recreated. And somebody should try to see if both types of gunshot sounds CAN be made from the same rifle on top of AGR building 6.
Lastly, I want to know why all the police were told to look in the windows of AGR building 6. They all knew there was a guy on the roof, and some knew he had a rifle, but they went looking in the windows. Why?
6 Likes
I’m with you on all that. All I’ve ever done here is try to get to the truth, as is evident in every single comment I have made here. The hostile and close minded reaction from Vegas Patriot is indefensible, and while I am disappointed that nobody here who witnessed it has spoken against it, it is telling that nobody is willing to defend it either.
Because how could you?
Btw, this community has flagged this as spam: So It's Back To First Principles - #4847
Would anyone from this community like to explain themselves? How exactly should I edit this to reflect this “feedback” I have received from the community?
If anything, I think that comment and comments from VP and myself above it just show what a complete ingrate he is on top of everything else. That it is now hidden is just the cherry on top.
1 Like
I’ve been in “conspiracy” circles for quite some time, starting with being a vaccine warrior mom from all way back in 2004. I ignored what most other people said and got my older daughter largely healed from what was then called PDD-NOS. It’s part of the autism spectrum, but generally on the milder side.
I’m pretty disappointed that I can’t seem to get anyone’s attention on anything, but I try to give people a fair listen and eventually tune them out if necessary.
I am stunned that just about everyone here seems to be leaning towards a lone gunman theory despite drastically different audio signatures for shots 1-3 vs shots 4-8, sworn testimony that counter snipers were taking fire at the same time as shots started being fired, AND at least one scar of a victim is incompatible with shots coming from the AGR building. That and three congressmen are openly considering the possibility of a second gunman - something I never thought I’d see.
But then again, we know for a FACT that the military budgets quite a bit for people to post crap online to influence opinion, and we can pretty safety assume that the CIA and other intelligence agencies spend even more money to do this.
Birds of a Feather.pdf (1.1 MB)
1 Like
Not at all. Sometimes I think when we try to check Greg’s bizarre testimony it is just a rabbit hole with dead end. I also think someone had to inform the individual that he would have a real chance. I saw incompetence at a lot of places. People who try to prove their non-existing skills, for any price. But someone has choosen the desk pop cop for the role of the top of incompetence, I think.
This was a hystorical event, and possible will be on topic for the next few decades. I also think the danger is not away yet.
2 Likes
I think you need a break VP.
First you spend a whole page writing about the word “the” to argue against a position I didn’t hold, ironically demonstrating that my “work” is above your reading level. So It's Back To First Principles - #5476 by vegaspatriot
You will remember that this ad hominem was part of your disrespectful response that first made things contentious between us.
Now you write another screed named after the fallacy of guilt by association.
Let’s have a look.
(Before I begin can I simply recommend for anyone to look at my comment history and read this entire exchange for yourself without relying on any spin from VP or myself. It’s easy because I don’t really have any comments unrelated to it. This is obviously the superior way for anyone on the outside to assess this. I don’t think VP would prefer this for obvious reasons, hence the damage control in these slides and the referencing of only a fraction of our exchange)
Read along with your slides to see what I am referring to.
[Revision after completing this: I am responding to the original pdf, not the new one. I don’t know if there are significant differences and I am not spending any more time to check - Birds of a Feather.pdf (1.1 MB)]
SLIDE 1
You want to respond to a single post on X, instead of responding to any of the many critiques of your work that are still currently standing.
About your stubbornness, it is mostly on display regarding door 13, but let’s look at my very first (now hidden) comment here:
This alone shows you had it wrong, but you would not accept this (after refreshing your memory about the footage if needed).
This is a second reason that shows you had it wrong. Maybe I’ll give you some credit and assume you dismissed it because I used an S instead of Z. (You ignored all these arguments and liked the reply that dismissed them all because I spelled Nicol with an H So It's Back To First Principles - #5508 by chris-nolan).
In both instances I listed the source and page number right there.
S2
Why would the posts get hidden a month later, presumably just after you read this tweet that you are upset about? One hidden post includes the above 2 proofs that you were wrong about the site/advance agent. The genesis of you fixing your recognition tools is against community guidelines? Please. I assume you had something to do with it. I have no problem making assumptions, but obviously I can’t prove it. (See how easy that is?)
Deflection from what? You had already dismissed me and were not responding to any of my objections that still stand from weeks ago. I was already over this place, and there was nothing left to deflect from besides your poor performance here.
S3
Fair enough, even though some could have already determined the truth from my initial comment.
S4
I am referring to every comment you made in between my first comment and your comment about the hospital when you finally changed your mind. You can say this is an uncharitable way to frame your objections to my initial proofs, but that is to be expected after what has transpired.
[Revision after reading on and making the points below: To me I remember writing all of those extra proofs before I saw you mention the hospital comment so I wrongly remember you as only changing your mind after all that. You were not quite as stubborn as I remember. I won’t brag about changing my mind and admitting I had something wrong. This is a bare minimum for any serious person]
S5
Not sure of your objection to me providing further proof considering the first 2 didn’t seem to suffice. I am referencing the very transcripts you said you were going to review. This is me being helpful once again, and I took time away from what I was working on to do so. Yet here you are making a slide complaining about it.
I guess underlining “my documentary” is to justify hiding my comments?
S6
Well done on finding the comment about the hospital. I had this in my notes and would have gotten to it eventually as I was going through them. I had temporarily forgotten about it, as I don’t remember every detail I wrote down. To me my AHA! moment was the first 2 points on my very first comment. It is the same kind of proof. But even if I did add the hospital comment I suppose you would have complained about me not waiting for you like you did in slide 5.
I gave you credit for admitting you were wrong and updating your conclusions based on new evidence. It took longer than I think was needed but you got there in the end. Although you only did this when it was completely impossible to do otherwise, as I said in this tweet that you are complaining about. I imagine if not for that hospital comment you would have dismissed all my other proofs and to this day your recognition tools would still be wrong. (Just an assumption)
I was very happy about you and this exchange at the time. I initially felt welcomed here and thought you were open to criticism. This is why I thought it was ok to do it a second time, and even to insist with it for a longer time than the first. Things were fine when I initially brought up door 13. Me daring to bring it up again weeks later is what set you off. I still hadn’t resolved the issue for my own work and checked back in here and noticed you still mentioning it. Given how you did not address my points the first time and seemed to be getting irritated with it back then I tried to walk on eggshells so I wouldn’t upset you, to no avail.
Maybe it was the word assume that upset you. Maybe it was me playfully I saying couldn’t help myself. Maybe it was me talking about biases. It wasn’t anything rational, that’s for sure. Your response was not very good, to put it mildly.
I only brought up your stubbornness later on after you became defensive and bragged about changing your mind in the past.
Although admittedly with door 13 I do not have proof of a positive claim, rather I had objections to you making yours. Unfortunately there is no hospital equivalent this time around that would allow you to possibly change your mind.
S 7/8
It is obvious I was responding to your “evidence” that you thought showed you were not wrong when I kept providing more proof. I had not seen your comment about the hospital as you even point out in your slide. You can see on the end of this exchange that I saw your hospital comment after, and congratulated you getting to it. So It's Back To First Principles - #4663 by chris-nolan
I was also dealing with comment restrictions so I had to edit to respond to later posts and couldn’t embed what I wanted, which is frustrating considering I took the time to find all of those parts in the transcripts and take screenshots I couldn’t post, all in the pursuit of helping your understanding.
S 9
Your disdain came later, after you simply kept referring back to your analysis in lieu of attempting to address most of my points like I am doing here with yours. You seem incapable of accepting that an intelligent person could insist your work is incorrect in this case. Maybe it’s because unlike two small pictures in the recognition tools, this time it’s a whole analysis that you have put a lot of time into that would have to be seriously revised, which would be uncomfortable for anybody to accept.
Here comes the guilt by association I guess.
S 10
Not exactly sure of your point here. Yes I got it a bit late. I think I was away from the browser reading transcripts, taking screenshots and writing my reply in textedit (as I am doing now) before pasting here and not watching every comment come in while I was doing so. I forget exactly how the restrictions and editing went.
You quote my tweet in black when I reference something much later/very recently (you bragging about changing your mind that time, in response to me touching a nerve about your obvious biases). To be fair, my tweet is not clear there but I did not expect for you to attempt to pick it apart with all these slides. This is a bit surreal to be honest.
S 11
Not sure what anything to do with Ken proves. Guilt by association is a fallacy as I said. I don’t know the details of what you also had a problem with him about and also started writing these little pdfs for. My arguments rest solely on our comments and wish you could say the same.
S 12
What slander are you referring to?
“Sadly, both have used Peak Prosperity to try to defame me using ad hominem attacks.”
I can only encourage people to read through all of the exchange between me and VP. It speaks for itself, and I stand by everything. There is no defamation. I am not sure how the law works with me being in Australia but if it were possible I would invite you to sue me.
You are glad that my comments were flagged and hidden? You had nothing to do with it I am sure. What guidelines have I broken, and where specifically? What guideline has been broken in this comment that still has your like on it that is undeniably helpful? So It's Back To First Principles - #4847
All of my posts qualify as three yeses to those terms of use questions (where relevant). The only exception might be one comment just after you went ad hominem about my reading level and followed up with another ridiculously petty comment showing how much me saying “I couldn’t help myself” triggered you for some reason, and was completely warranted.
Did you ask yourself those questions before making that post? What are the answers? Poor baby doesn’t get enough credit. Get over yourself.
This is all a red herring anyway as all my comments were flagged as spam, not for hurting your feelings.
I assume the last slide is a draft for the above.
I also assume that you…
- getting pissed with me
- no longer responding to me
- blocking me
- seeing my tweet that you are upset about
- writing these slides
…along with…
- 5 of my posts from ages ago that do not violate any community guidelines all getting hidden So It's Back To First Principles - #5572 by chris-nolan
…all happening around the same time suggests you had something to do with the hiding. This is not proof, but I would argue this a safer assumption than your assumptions about door 13.
Regardless, here in these slides you seem to support such a ridiculous action even if you claim it was unrelated to you.
#########
This is all in response to your pdf alone. See how I was able to respond to all of your points? You should try that sometime with the doors. I have plenty of other points I could make but I have wasted enough time on this and anyone can read our comment history for themselves. My comments stand for themselves and are an example of what this place pretends to appreciate.
I’ve done this mostly from memory and haven’t gone through the entire exchange. People should read it instead of listening to us after the fact as I said at the outset.
This was far easier than picking apart your door 9 & 13 analysis, and most of those objections you have not even attempted to counter. This one seems mostly to be you getting defensive about one paragraph on one tweet. It’s quite impotent to cry about ad hominem when you started it, and I have been arguing against your positions this entire time, and you can not say the same for mine. I am not calling you names in lieu of any actual arguments and then acting like these names are what makes me right.
The time you spent on these slides as well as the “the” ones should have instead been channeled in the direction of responding to the arguments if you were truly interested in the truth and not just defending your bruised ego. Save this for your Dear Diary. Address my objections or stop making pdfs about me as a pathetic alternative. Obviously you can keep making things of this standard but no intelligent person of good character should respect that.
I also should not have spent this much time replying, but I am frankly pissed off that I have spent so much time helping to get to the truth here just to be treated like a piece of shit by the likes of you.
You said you should probably apologise for your bitchy response that started all this. And although I assume you were being facetious, you probably should. I’d forgive this whole sorry episode. Sadly, I do not think you are capable of this. You are more likely to write another few slides about how bitchy is an ad hominem, ignoring how warranted it is in this case, or how my arguments do not depend on this quip.
I was wrong.
I’m a country kid and used to seeing casings ejected from bolt-action hunting rifles.
I wasn’t expecting the lighter AR-15 casing to change direction mid-air, but that’s what happened. Shot #1 was horizontal but then changed direction and became vertical. My 10-year old laptop wasn’t picking up the frames in between, giving the illusion of two quick, successive shots.
The audio appears to be slightly out of synch on the TMZ clip, which further added to the confusion.
Evan Coons’s X post which followed mine, and an earlier GIF posted here, are both correct. The TMZ footage only captures Shot #1.
3 Likes
Understood. Thanks.
1 Like