Is she the same woman who appears at the top right of the screen and starts talking to Terryl Farnsworth (video and sound guy who NEVER usually goes to these events, but did only on this occassion)? She turns up at the 21.30 minute mark. Check it out. It looks like the same lady to me.
In this clip Baron Coleman investigates possible electrical burns on Charlie's hands at the time he was "shot".
He points out a lot of 'mucking around' by the sound man in conjuction with Terryl Farnsworth, as well as microphone feedback, security telling Hunter Cozak
not to touch the microphone and Terryl Farnsworth telling Charlie to '
pick the microphone up'. As well as those 'hand signals' from Dan Flood. All this occured just before he was "shot".
I believe so.
Pant color matches. I was wondering if it was the same cell phone she was using (assuming it's a cell phone). But the quality is too low.
Brainstorming:
(Joe) And also in the last session they said that extra protection had been activated or something for people furthering knowledge. So are we to assume that Charlie Kirk wasn't among those furthering knowledge because he wasn't protected?
A: He might have done so much more and that is part of the motivation for selecting him as a target.
> They killed him because of his potential. He was a promising guy who would have been shaking a lot of things. A lot of potential.
Q: (L) Was the primary motivation the effect on the psyche of the American people or global people or whatever?
A: Yes
> They killed him that way because they wanted to traumatize people.
> They could "afford" to carry on his assassination in such a way
Overall:
> They could not kill Trump any more
> They look for a "second-hand target"
> Their motivation, at this exact stage, is "getting rid of the person who would, in the future, do them the most trouble"
> They select Charlie Kirk.
> Then, they do this in a specific "way", as seen above, traumatizing people, leaving an imprint etc
So they are into
"maximizing" their actions. Maximization (of input/output). They don't want to "loose", they want "things".
They are quite in charge of the process. The only thing is that they are dependent on the "niet Trump", from higher spheres.
I understand that the higher spheres gave them the green light. After this, they do a bit how they please. They would be "yeah", "let's activate the apparatus". They just organize it, and what we see is the result of it.
Too, I see that STS is located somewhere. It could be difficult to retrace the situation on the scene. All we would see is a display of efforts,
initially set by STS.
Well - I think we could, but I have no idea at what such an inquiry would look like.
Hmm thinking of this: STS, in this context, are always "perfect". This is due to their intelligence, their capabilities. What I mean is that it will be extremely difficult to find anything.
Still, from what I know, there can be "glimpses", or "bugs". A small detail. A sand grain in the machine. This could be our chance, but I believe that overall, we need to assume that the whole was duly managed by higher STS forces. I mean, when it took place, for STS, it would be like seeing the scene from above, and making sure that strictly nothing leaks.
What took place is basically "big STS" who had the green light to carry on an action. they would, of course, cover all angles.
I am wondering what in the world, could be a flaw, within such a context.
I would simply look for "over-professionalism". Too much covering up, too much one of a perfect plan. I believe that it was indeed "Impeccable".
The CIA works like that. The C's used us to this knowledge. They are the masters of covering up tracks, and they leave zero evidence. We can know about their activities only thanks to the C's.
And so, this would be the background of the scene, I believe. "Perfection". Impermeability.
So it's not easy here, it would not be easy to find out anything. I would proceed according to the idea that they indeed perfectly covered up every angle - and see what would constitute a correct approach in this regard.
This suggests "zero room", but, knowing about that, and approaching the matter with this in mind - constitutes an angle.
- We know there is
- We know all is perfect
The matter would be than to find a way through this sort of riddle. And to find the "sand grain"?
www.youtube.com
