ic.
but still, the damage on the body is not consistent with the mess a 300 winchester magnum round from a sniper rifle would have left…
the impact in ballistic gel is not a perfect equivalent of what such a bullet would do to a real human, but it surely illustrates the potential damage…
Because I think the first 3 shots came from the 3rd window on Bldg 6. I’ve thought that ever since the Stewert video was released.
And the north barn snipers were distracted, but the south barn snipers had a view of AGR 6.
I’m not so sure that the 3rd window wasn’t blocked to their viewpoint. There is that crane arm and even more items past what you’ve shown at the time of the shooting.
It’s weird as hell that the USSS snipers were placed side by side. We all know this. 100% it was planned, which means there is a reason why.
That crane seems to line up just too perfectly between the south barn snipers and window 3 on AGR 6.
And an additional reason I think it’s window 3 and not the vent (other than ease of access), the trajectory angle of window 3 to Trump lines up with Crooks on the roof to Trump. The angle from the vent to Trump is offset. It doesn’t align.
that crane would only have blocked the line of sight of 1 of the 2 snipers of each pair…
I really do not think that window was used to shoot from…
it may look like a stupid question, but here we go: do you refer to the middle window in the first building in this building (that is building 6) or do you refer to the 3rd window of the higher building on the left (near the arrow pointing down with 1348.35ft)?
This is the actual pov without the items placed. I don’t think south barn would have had a good view of window 3. The window to the right of the exhaust stacks/funnels/whatever those are.
North barn is a non issue. They thought they were being shot and were staring at the woods.
yes, but what building are you referring to…
I really do not know whether you refer to the middle window of the low building or the 3rd window of the higher building on the left behind the lower building…
Sonia, for what it’s worth, I see the organized, pile-on attack by two completely new (within the last few days) posters supporting the “fake blood” theory as being proof that we at PP.com, are in fact getting closer and closer to being over the target of what actually happened. These posters are here to muddy the waters with a hypothesis that Chris openly called “insane” in the days immediately after the shooting.
If people can be respectful of your theories, you should be equally respectful to theirs. Theories are just ideas and it is ok to explore them and find flaws and rule them out.
I’ve been actively, in full public view, working this problem since the assassination attempt occurred, as ThePythonicCow on a less prominent site, projectavalon.net, where I have been an admin and major participant since 2011. The discussion and research into this attempted assassination was more active here, so I re-invigorated my long dormant PeakProsperity membership (1) to contribute to and benefit from the work here.
Could you point me to whatever Chris said, in the early days, when he labeled something “insane”? I doubt that my current hypothesis is what Chris might have called “insane”.
If, as I am guessing, he was labeling hypothesis that the assassination was staged to be an insane hypothesis, then I quite agree, and have agreed all along … whatever happened was seriously real and seriously intended to kill Trump.
Could it be that the flak I am getting here means that it’s me who is over the target. ?
And, by the way, my hypothesis is essentially relevant to the First Principles analysis of the mechanics, physics, geometry, ballistics and other specific physical events that occurred there, that day.
The assumption that one of the first bullets passed dangerously close to or actually nicked Trump’s right ear is baked into and a critical assumption to much of the trajectory analysis that endeavors to locate possible shooting locations.
That assumption CAN NOT be proven, at least not from any evidence I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a fair bit of it.
===
(1) – I’ve held the handle “ThePythonicCow” here and on chrismartenson.com since August of 2009, and on numerous other sites since late 2001. I am no newbie on some covert mission.
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.
?
