Failed Trump Assassination Attempt

I have fired a scoped AR15. Firing multiple rounds while fighting muzzle rise and staying on target is no easy feat. Keeping it on target for 8 rounds requires a pretty serious skill set. I find it doubtful that someone skilled enough to fire 8 rounds while staying on target would choose a .223 assault rifle for the job. A .308 long rifle would be more suitable.
Than it could come from a bigger distance than they said it was. And if that is the case Trump really had luck with that ear.
 
As I said, you are pretty much the only person here who uses the "dislike" button.
Maybe you should also ask yourself why nobody else here uses the dislike button.

FYI - Niall and Joe have no qualms about using the dislike button if they feel it's warranted. I'm not a fan myself and stopped using it as I think there are better and more productive ways to communicate regarding a disagreement or viewpoint of a post.

Why does a thumbs down triggers you that much? Leave that alone. A thumbs down means someone doesn’t like or doesn’t completely agree with your comment, that’s it. Both of you can discuss this issue on another personal thread and pause with the noise on this one.

As suggested, a new thread to discuss the "dislike" button can and should be initiated if you feel so strongly about it.
 
good point. apparently one man in the stands as shot in the head and died instantly, and a woman was shot in the hand/arm. I would think the stands would be facing where Trump was speaking, Time to look at the photos and layout of the shooter position, the stands, Trump, and the location of shot people.
Do we know how many of those shots were the killer and how many came from SS snipers counter-shots at this time? It all seemed to kinda blend in together for me. Like maybe there were only 3 shots from the assassin and 5 from the SS etc?
 
You guys that think Trump faked it, what do you say to this?
I am open to all possibilities and do not rule anything out. As I said, a miniscule explosive device at his ear could have been used, considering that getting hit only in the ear is extremely unlikely. Plus, I do not see Trump in such a positive light considering his involvement in the mRNA jabs genocide, as well condoning the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

The other possibility is that this was a real assassination attempt and the extremely unlikely hit in only his ear may be due to some kind of divine protection. This does seem more likely, but I do not rule out other possibilities either.
 
Your reasons don't seem based in evidence. You're saying that Trump's wound was 'self'-inflicted, yet there is evidence that multiple bullets were fired at close proximity to Trump, some hitting and even killing an innocent bystander. This evidence supports disproving that Trump was not the target. If Trump was the target, then he could not have known about the possibility of inflicting such a wound upon himself, except perhaps by opportunism, which would require he had this hypothetical 'wounding device' you speak of on hand for quick access, which becomes considerably improbable.

Your logical thinking appears to have collapsed with regard to this situation, which I find somewhat interesting given your astute take on the Ukraine-Russia situation in general. Why should you think this way about this situation, which is a US domestic political situation that has nothing to do with Russia, thus suggesting even greater emotional distance from the subject in your case?
Oh, mommies! Save me!
What arguments, statements and proofs are you writing about? I have some suggestions.
Do you have any proof? With the bunch of cases that C's used to comment on, when one shooter was obviously acting, and they claimed that there were three of them, etc. Who then, in those cases, saw any evidence?
I have already written to Keit that I never claimed that there was no shooting.
And I still hope that my logical thinking has not been shaken and my penetrating gaze (thanks for such an assessment) has remained with me. It's just that I see some possibilities, and others don't even want to look in that direction.
I will write again in other words what I have already tried to write before, so that people will moderate their emotions. I don't like the situation with the "staging" anymore (I emphasize that there can be quite a lot of staging options) than the situation with a real attack. I just see the possibility of this, and I write about it without any emotion.

Ой, мамочки! Спасите меня!
Про какие доводы, утверждения и доказательства вы пишете? У меня есть предположения.
А у вас есть доказательства? При той куче случаев, которые раньше комментировали C's, когда очевидно действовал один стрелок, а они утверждали, что их было три и т.д. Кто тогда, в тех случаях видел какие то доказательства?
Я уже писал Кейт, что никогда не утверждал того, что стрельбы не было.
И я все же надеюсь, что мое логическое мышление не пошатнулось и мой проницательный взгляд (спасибо за такую оценку) остался со мной. Просто я вижу некоторые возможности, а другие не хотят даже смотреть в эту сторону.
Напишу еще раз другими словами то, что раньше уже пытался написать, чтобы люди поумерили свои эмоции. Мне ни насколько больше не нравится ситуация с "постановкой" (подчеркну, что вариантов постановки может быть довольно много), чем ситуация с реальным нападением. Просто я вижу возможность этого, об этом и пишу без всяких эмоций.
 
There are theories floating around that it was two shooters.
One twitter feed I saw was talking about a witness who was too far away to see Trump, but saw someone with a gun crawling up the roof of a building. He says that he was telling policemen in the area, and they were acting confused and not apparently doing anything (although they could have been, just not visible to the witness) The witness said that the gunman would not have been available to the secret service until he crested the the peak of the roof. The gunman was apparently shot and killed. Then there is another, they say 'potential' shooter being taken away. So possibly two shooters, or more?
 
Do we know how many of those shots were the killer and how many came from SS snipers counter-shots at this time? It all seemed to kinda blend in together for me. Like maybe there were only 3 shots from the assassin and 5 from the SS etc?
The first three slow shots were from the assassinator, followed by a 3 sec pause, then a counter fire was launched.

 
Oh, mommies! Save me!
What arguments, statements and proofs are you writing about? I have some suggestions.
Do you have any proof? With the bunch of cases that C's used to comment on, when one shooter was obviously acting, and they claimed that there were three of them, etc. Who then, in those cases, saw any evidence?
I have already written to Keit that I never claimed that there was no shooting.
And I still hope that my logical thinking has not been shaken and my penetrating gaze (thanks for such an assessment) has remained with me. It's just that I see some possibilities, and others don't even want to look in that direction.
I will write again in other words what I have already tried to write before, so that people will moderate their emotions. I don't like the situation with the "staging" anymore (I emphasize that there can be quite a lot of staging options) than the situation with a real attack. I just see the possibility of this, and I write about it without any emotion.

Ой, мамочки! Спасите меня!
Про какие доводы, утверждения и доказательства вы пишете? У меня есть предположения.
А у вас есть доказательства? При той куче случаев, которые раньше комментировали C's, когда очевидно действовал один стрелок, а они утверждали, что их было три и т.д. Кто тогда, в тех случаях видел какие то доказательства?
Я уже писал Кейт, что никогда не утверждал того, что стрельбы не было.
И я все же надеюсь, что мое логическое мышление не пошатнулось и мой проницательный взгляд (спасибо за такую оценку) остался со мной. Просто я вижу некоторые возможности, а другие не хотят даже смотреть в эту сторону.
Напишу еще раз другими словами то, что раньше уже пытался написать, чтобы люди поумерили свои эмоции. Мне ни насколько больше не нравится ситуация с "постановкой" (подчеркну, что вариантов постановки может быть довольно много), чем ситуация с реальным нападением. Просто я вижу возможность этого, об этом и пишу без всяких эмоций.
We have to figure it out as much as we can first.
(L) Yeah, I mean, did everybody learn a really good lesson from the whole Covid mess and how we started discussing it from the very, very beginning and kept putting all of the relevant information together, and we were able actually to derive some pretty good conclusions just from collecting data and sharing and discussing it. So let us continue to do that no matter what comes down the pike, because I mean, I'm sorry that some of you had to take the vaccines.
 
Ryan what you say is aligned to what the Cs say and as the material is still dubious there could be other alternatives plus in the last session Cs gave no clue about any trace of attack on Trump.
For your first post, you appear to be somewhat literate with the C's material, but if you had better knowledge of the sessions, you would know that the C's discussed an assassination attempt on Trump as recently as a few months ago:

C's Session 9th March 2024 said:
Q: (Joe) Do these program changes of the type our reality is about to undergo happen fairly frequently? Have they happened in our lifetimes before?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Do they happen frequently?
A: No
Q: (Gaby) Was 9-11 one?
A: Yes
Q: (L) Was the assassination of John F. Kennedy one?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Well, neither of those events were positive from our perspective. So, it’s probably best to assume that this next one will be the same – i.e. not positive from our perspective?
A: Close
Q: (Joe) And when they say, "is about to undergo", is that imminent or within the next year?
A: Months or so.
Q: (Joe) What are the chances of Trump being assassinated this year?
A: Possible made to look natural event.
Q: (Gaby) Like a heart attack.
A: Stroke.
Q:
(Joe) Does the program change that they're talking about that's within X number of months relate to the releasing of a new virus?
A: Not yet.
Q: (Andromeda) So something else before that.
If the Quorum is part of a hidden hand to shuffle the fate of all for the sake of universal balance how is it that according to the Quorum's higher sense things are out of balance?
You are assuming that the Quorum is acting "for the sake of universal balance". Personally, I don't place much faith in the good nature of people who conduct secret meetings with aliens with the future of humanity on the agenda.

Or will it be that imbalance is constant as well as balance there is plenty of evidence..ej the state of the world and why it is not yet completely destroyed.
This statement is nonsensical. I suggest you don't try to think in paradoxes; it will destroy your brain.

By the way, could you please introduce yourself in the Newbies & Important Notices to All Members forum, so other Forum members can get to know who they are speaking with? Thanks!

What arguments, statements and proofs are you writing about? I have some suggestions.
Do you have any proof? With the bunch of cases that C's used to comment on, when one shooter was obviously acting, and they claimed that there were three of them, etc. Who then, in those cases, saw any evidence?
Why are you talking about some other situations? What relevance does that have to the current situation?

I have already written to Keit that I never claimed that there was no shooting.
I never claimed you said there was no shooting. That's a straw man argument.

And I still hope that my logical thinking has not been shaken and my penetrating gaze (thanks for such an assessment) has remained with me. It's just that I see some possibilities, and others don't even want to look in that direction.
Logic is a useful tool, but can lead to wrong conclusions. And there are many possibilities, even an infinity of them, but not all of them are worth mentioning.

I will write again in other words what I have already tried to write before, so that people will moderate their emotions. I don't like the situation with the "staging" anymore (I emphasize that there can be quite a lot of staging options) than the situation with a real attack. I just see the possibility of this, and I write about it without any emotion.
Except you haven't provided any evidence for the possibilities you mention. That's sloppy thinking. Taking the position of "it must be fake, because it's happening in the USA" is not one that befits a person of your intelligence, osit.
 
I have already written to Keit that I never claimed that there was no shooting.

Just a note that I also never said that you claimed that there was no shooting :-D I will explain now what I think you said. This way there won't be any misunderstanding, and you will be able to correct me.

Based on what you wrote here, I think you said that "this was a staged event. That there was no shooting to the ear, because it would be too dangerous. That instead the ear was damaged with some device, if it was damaged at all. Maybe in the subsequent "medical exam" the ear was carefully and safely damaged. As a result we have a hero figure that now no one will dare to remove before the elections. It's a real pity that someone suffered and died as a result of it."

And so if my understanding and translation are correct, my comments here still stand and relevant. :-)

I will just clarify this particular sentence:

It does look like there was an actual shooting and an injury as a result of the shooting.

Apologies if the above wasn't clear enough, and the following would be more accurate:

It does look like there was an actual shooting at Trump and an injury as a result of the shooting.

This is my opinion at this particular point, and it doesn't mean it wouldn't change if some other facts would become available. But the general sentiment expressed in this post would still be very much relevant and valid. :-)
 
Than it could come from a bigger distance than they said it was. And if that is the case Trump really had luck with that ear.
Indeed, a .308 sniper rifle would have only required one shot from a trained sniper. The AR15 at that distance is
more like “unload the clip and hope you hit your target” scattershot fingers crossed. Not a professional looking job. More like a fanatic trying to make a statement.
 
A view from the outside. The picture that goes around the world is iconic and I frankly think that's all that's needed, just as iconic are the agents Smith protecting him and exposing him at the same time with a clenched fist and blood in his face: don't think for a moment that he's someone who drains the swamp. He's our protégé. And he himself thanks them, the battle is a common one. God bless America, first.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom