Failed Trump Assassination Attempt

[JEEP]

Just started watching this - has Shepard Ambellas figured it out? Beginning images of 52:59 youtube:





Trump assassination plot unraveled: Shepard Ambellas reveals exact multiple shooter positions, trajectories
Ambellas triangulates the shooters' exact locations and shot paths through meticulous analysis and venue mapping. Footage reveals the precision of the coordinated attack as a single projectile's course is traced through multiple victims.

(SQAUK) — In a stunning presentation, Sqauk editor-in-chief and investigative journalist Shepard Ambellas meticulously pieced together the intricate details of the Donald Trump assassination plot, bringing a newfound clarity to the harrowing incident. Ambellas successfully triangulated the shooters’ exact shot paths and positions through a detailed analysis and mapping of the venue grounds. He could plot its precise course by examining footage that showed multiple attendees being hit by a single projectile, demonstrating how it passed through various individuals in one shot. This comprehensive reconstruction of the event provided an undeniable understanding of the shooters’ coordinated attack, shedding light on the sinister precision of the assassination attempt.

In an attempt to assassinate former President Donald Trump, shooter #1, identified by the FBI as “Thomas Matthew Crooks,” fired shots at former President Donald Trump and struck him in the right ear as he turned his head. The gunfire prompted four counter-sniper teams located in different positions around the venue to attempt to track and locate the rooftop shooter “Crooks.” The image below depicts the locations of the closest counter-sniper rooftop team, indicated by the blue dots. This team was targeted by shooter #2.
[see 1st image - shooter #1 and #2]

The Secret Service counter-sniper team closest to Crooks’s position heard the shots aimed at Trump and spotted the shooter. However, it was widely unreported that the iconic counter-sniper in the video footage never fired a shot. He didn’t get a shot off because he was being shot at himself, which is why we see him and his spotter momentarily pull back. [see 2nd image - location of shooter #2 counter-sniper nest]

In the following image, you will see the trajectory of shooter #2’s shot, which was intended for the iconic counter-sniper that we all have seen footage of. Notice in the footage how the Secret Service sniper ducks rapidly and pulls his gun back when he hears the sizzle of a bullet whizz by.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1812531320741908748

Shooter #2’s bullet, directed at the counter-sniper closest to Crooks, was captured on video striking two rally attendees who were standing in the third set of bleachers, furthest to the East of the venue, killing one and critically injuring another. The two bystanders struck by the bullet are depicted in the image below as blue dots. This allowed Ambellas to track the exact path of the bullet.

Additionally, it is vital to point out that several rally attendees who were on the set of bleachers in which the two victims were struck were captured on video pointing and screaming that a second shooter was in the exact direction shown with the red line, tracing back to shooter #2’s position in the sniper nest.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1813317037399408777

Added after end of article:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1813560154123555045

 

[Benjamin]

Dutch was reportedly holding his wound(s) with a t-shirt. In the image in Benjamin's post he's holding the region of his right front ribs and stomach. When the first shots were fired he was standing perpendicular to the graph on display above his head, looking at it. So a shot from Crooks's direction could have hit him anywhere along the front of his body.
View attachment 98422

Btw, forgot to thank you for the great video find of Dutch and Coperhaver.

"Right front". I was thinking about this. In the video/screen shot of the bullet that pinged off of the rail (the first shot fired?), Dutch was looking at the jumbotron behind him which meant that his left side was facing Crooks (view your larger map). His wounds are, like you say, on his front right. Is Joe correct when he says one of his wounds could be from a ricochet? If it wasn't, he would have to have turned towards Crooks at some point after going down (instinctively knowing bullets were flying?) or could he have been shot from the right? Could the (first three?) shots have been from the right while everyone was looking left at Crooks? Or was that already discussed, ruled out and I missed it? This idea seems a bit unlikely though, but if I could just point out that there is another building on the map that could be a great location for a shooter. I don't know exactly what it is, but the only description I could find is "building with gabled roof" on Mapcarta. There's two of them and the one is almost the exactly same distance as Crook's building. It looks like the shooter would be hidden by trees from overwatch behind Trump.



Also, for your map, there's Ronny Jackson’s nephew who was injured in the front row, and the hydraulic spray that was suggested as being possibly hit by a shot. Though, I guess, those are unconfirmed.

 

[JEEP]

More anomalies concerning Crooks:

Interview: There Should be a Lot of Blood Photos and ER Trauma Surgeon Claims Trump Rally Sniper Body is Missing Massive Bloodsprays

Dr. James says the few pictures that have emerged from the rally scene don’t make sense.

“There should be a lot of blood, and there aren’t, in these pictures,” said Dr. James

Dr. James says that the pictures of what federal authorities claim is the body of Thomas Crooks on top of the American Glass Research building in Butler, Pennsylvania, from where Crooks is alleged to have taken shots at President Trump, is missing a large bloodspray behind the body that would be typical.

“There should be a considerable amount of blood. It depends on the exact trajectory through the head and also a few other factors, but behind the body should be a significant amount of blood, brain, hair, skull fragments, and even vertebrae,” Dr. James said.

In comparing the picture from a drone of the whole roof with the picture provided by federal authorities of the body up close, Dr. James notices several irregularities in how the blood has dried on the face.

“Blood follows gravity, so if the entry point is behind the head, it won’t be going against gravity.”

“It looks to me as though the body has been moved.”

You can see the entire interview with Dr. Mollie James here.

ABLECHILD: FBIs Initial Call on No Mental Health Issues Appears to Be Wrong

It was just 48 hours ago that the FBI assured the American public that the would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, did not have any mental illness problems. This, of course, is odd because most of the recent shooters had mental illness problems and were being seriously medicated with prescribed psychiatric mind-altering drugs.

Today, however, an “Exclusive” by the Daily Mail reports that family friends find that mental illness may have been in play. For example, according to unnamed family friends, he (crooks) was “increasingly disturbed young man who grew his hair long, isolated himself from friends and became plagued by mental health disturbances that led some to believe he was either bi-polar or schizophrenic.”

Another person who knew the family reported “he was a cute kid, maybe a little bit off, maybe a little bit of a loner. But in the past couple of years, he started suffering what we all suspected was mental health issues.” The friend concluded, “we never knew for sure if he had been diagnosed or if he was being medicated but he started growing his hair long, he withdrew.”

So, what is it? Was Crooks a mental health patient being drugged for some alleged mental illness. Was his family, mother, and father, aware of the mental illness? Did the mother or father send him for “treatment”, and did they know whether he was diagnosed and medicated?

Whether the would-be assassin was being “treated” with psychiatric drugs is no small matter. This would-be killer was surrounded by mental health practitioners, as his mother and father were both mental health counselors. Further, Crooks worked in a nursing home, which is rampant with psychiatric drugs. Did he get his hands on drugs from that facility?

These are important questions. But it really isn’t surprising that the FBI concluded within 24 hours of the attack that the shooter was not suffering from a mental illness. Oops. Now, it seems, friends of the family think otherwise.

Many of the psychiatric drugs used to “treat” bi-polar and schizophrenia have serious adverse events associated with them, including mania, psychosis, abnormal thinking and behavior, suicidal and homicidal ideation, nightmares, and aggressive behavior to name a few. If Crooks was taking a cocktail of psychiatric drugs, then the adverse events could be amplified.

It’s time for the FBI to get to the truth. Was Crooks diagnosed with a mental illness as suggested by family friends or not. This is not tough information to obtain. Perhaps just speaking with his mental health expert father may yield important clues and maybe a chat with his employer could be helpful.

 

[Ketone Cop]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1814026048654172631

This should put to rest the "Trump cut himself" talk going around. But I do have to ask:

Why didn't we see this video earlier? It's a conspiracy!!

 

[Jefferson]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1814026048654172631

This should put to rest the "Trump cut himself" talk going around. But I do have to ask:

Why didn't we see this video earlier? It's a conspiracy!!

Good video, although of course libtards with TDS will somehow say it is fake or something. We know Trump would not stage this, and this idea was ruled out very quickly. It does not fit with his nature that he would agree to innocents getting killed, take the risk of being exposed, and sell his soul for a bit more popularity which he didn't really need. High risk, low return. As Niall said on NewsReal, the staging claims are "nonsense".

In addition, this nonsensical notion would require him to mutilate his own ear (as he wouldn't get away with just some fake blood thingie and no signs of physical injury with 1000s of people watching him) - again, this does not fit at all with Trump's nature and style.

 

[hiker]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1814026048654172631

This should put to rest the "Trump cut himself" talk going around. But I do have to ask:

Why didn't we see this video earlier? It's a conspiracy!!

The video is fake, unfortunately. Someone has mirrored it: the flag should be on the left side of the cap.
(Some commenters pointed this out below the tweet.)

 

[Jefferson]

Good video, although of course libtards with TDS will somehow say it is fake or something.

I'll take that libtard comment back in light of:

The video is fake, unfortunately. Someone has mirrored it: the flag should be on the left side of the cap.
(Some commenters pointed this out below the tweet.)

In any case, it still stands that it is highly unlikely that Trump would (or could) mutilate his own ear.

 

[aragorn]

In an attempt to assassinate former President Donald Trump, shooter #1, identified by the FBI as “Thomas Matthew Crooks,” fired shots at former President Donald Trump and struck him in the right ear as he turned his head. The gunfire prompted four counter-sniper teams located in different positions around the venue to attempt to track and locate the rooftop shooter “Crooks.” The image below depicts the locations of the closest counter-sniper rooftop team, indicated by the blue dots. This team was targeted by shooter #2.

In my opinion, Ambella's theory doesn't make sense. Firstly, if shooter#2 would've actually fired at the counter snipers from where Ambella claims, the line of fire would either be above the crowd on the bleachers or go straight through them. In the latter option, I'd say the success of the shot(s) would be completely unpredictable; if your aim is to shoot the counter snipers you wouldn't want a crowd to be standing in the way of your line of fire.

Secondly, I don't buy the idea of why the counter snipers would've been targeted. The idea appears to be that the counter snipers had to be eliminated so that Crooks would not be shot too soon as he started firing. As has been shown by many, for instance by Larry Johnson, Crooks was not a professional shooter and his weapon was not a proper sniper weapon. This means, IMO, that if we analyse the event on the premise that this was a classic assassination attempt by the 'Deep State' (highly probable), then the organizers did not expect Crooks, the patsy, to succeed with his attempt. They didn't even increase his chances by providing him with a better weapon and sight. Maybe they thought that "Okay, if we're really, really lucky, maybe this moron will hit Trump by accident" but they could by no means count on him succeeding.

Going with the above, this would mean that there was no value in protecting Crooks from the counter snipers. On the contrary, they needed him dead anyway. So, maybe the kill shots were supposed to be delivered by the professionals (or a drone) just after they heard Crooks firing his first shot but they got really unlucky: instead of Crooks missing his target (which was expected) or by luck actually hitting Trump, he accomplished the worst possible outcome (from 'their' perspective) – he hit Trump's ear, which made him aware of what was going on (but not dead), and as a result duck for cover, which made the actual kill shots miss their target. Maybe, the 'drone operator' or pro sniper(s) waited just a bit too long.

 

[Voyageur]

Regarding the Capture Path of Bullet to Trump by Doug Mills, happends to be the same photographer that captured this moment. Some people are very lucky to capture iconic moments, I would say.

Read what you said the other day, and paused to try to understand the implications of camera speed and other influences. @Gawan also brings it up here. So, from a few days ago (and he is not talking about Trump), is a guy studying the photographing bullets in the air (doable, but...):

https://www.peterrussellphotography.com/nk1/nk12.html

Catching a bullet in flight
Snip:

Whilst I was not expecting the task to be the easiest that I had ever undertaken, I seriously underestimated the effort involved.

After taking over 4000 images, using the 120 frames per second option at 1/32,000th second shutter speed I had absolutely nothing to show for my efforts - not a single pellet on any frame! That’s when I thought that maths and ballistics, rather than a scatter gun approach, would be able to help solve my problems. Where was I going wrong?

Well two things immediately sprang into focus - I was far, far too close to the anticipated action and I had no idea about the speed and thus how far a pellet would travel.
[...]
So shooting a bullet at 120fps, at ANY shutter speed faster than 1/125th sec, means that the frame would need to be at least 7m wide, if not closer to 15 metres wide, to have any chance of catching the bullet in flight somewhere in a frame. Remember that shooting at 1/32,000th sec sounds impressive, but think about what this really means; it means that you are actually missing 31,999ths of every second! What are the chances of the bullet being in exactly the right place within the picture area for the correct 1/32,000th of a second, bearing in mind that you’ve only got 120x chances of grabbing only 120/32,000ths of every second - not good odds!

In fact by photographing at slower shutter speeds theory dictates that you significantly increase your chances of catching a bullet in the frame, doubling your chances each time you double the shutter speed. The downside is that IF you catch the bullet in the frame it will exhibit much more movement.

So while technology is wonderful, as I discovered it needs skill and planning, allied to a huge dollop of luck and being much further away from the subject than you initially think you need to be.

So I recently spent the day on the rifle range, armed with my new set of computations, although with no real expectation of being able to get anything useful. I varied my distance from the shooter, using the NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lens, starting off by shooting at right angles to the line of flight and with a distance from left to right of the frame of somewhere around 7-10 metres. I had the luxury of time and lots of ammunition to vary the shutter speeds for each sequence, starting from 1/500th sec and going all the way to 1/32,000th sec.

I shot 20,922 images during the day but was unable to review them until putting them on my Mac later in the evening. At first glance things didn’t look too hopeful, but then I noticed that bullets leave a signature, particularly under the ideal weather and lighting conditions. Swirl, dust and debris - all create a trace of a bullet passing. Thus I was able to track back to the initial visible point of firing, the smoke exiting the muzzle. By the time the smoke leaves the barrel the bullet will be long gone, so tracking back from that and keeping a close eye on the firer’s trigger finger, I was able to begin to distinguish images that exhibited what I was looking for.

To my amazement I discovered that I had obtained a success ratio of 1:2000, capturing the flight of ten bullets with varying degrees of success, mainly dependent on shutter speed. The most obviously ‘bullet looking’ images were ones taken at speeds shorter than 1/10,000th sec, which is understandable, although even some at 1/500th sec exhibited ‘stretched’ bullets...

 

[Cosmos]

Audacity of the sending a camera man (Doug Mill) to capture the explosion of the head is UNBELIEVABLE. It is like public ritual sacrifice.

According to Gawan and someone else familiar with photography earlier in the thread there is probably nothing unusual about the guy using that equipment in the settings he did to take the pictures.

 

[Voyageur]

In connection to the last post above, if you think about it, the shot that hit Trumps ear could give us a very narrow possible angle range from which the bullet could have come from, and thus, a pretty precise location area of the shooter of that bullet. And I mean a very narrow and precise location.

This whole thing reminded me of the 'fiction' in the movie The International. Recall the scene, the shooter (patsy) who suddenly realizes he is not the only shooter (disregard this in terms of the kid in this Trump reality who seems to be on automation), and then the next scene when they look at the trajectory to realize there were two and not one shots.

Shooting from cover:

This one is on the Angles and can be seen in the first few seconds of this clip (shooting from the roof):

In this Trump reality, how this can all be laid out to see if there is validity, dunno. Maybe someone in time can see if it can be pieced together (Approaching Infinity mentioned possibilities with 3d modeling) .

 

[Cosmos]

Here's another shot from the video in my post above with the presumed location of Crooks (just above the brain/blood stain, visible in the video but not the image) and lines projecting to the 4 victims.
View attachment 98421

Dutch was reportedly holding his wound(s) with a t-shirt. In the image in Benjamin's post he's holding the region of his right front ribs and stomach. When the first shots were fired he was standing perpendicular to the graph on display above his head, looking at it. So a shot from Crooks's direction could have hit him anywhere along the front of his body.
View attachment 98422

With the locations of Trump, two wounded and one dead now being more or less clear/precise, I propose another theory:

- The operation WAS planned from higher quarters in the CIA or something. BUT, they were not hellbound on killing Trump from the getgo AT ALL because they had at least a second plan that didn’t involve Trump being killed and they were happy with that plan as well. The reason they choose the Trump Kill plan out of the two options was because it was a slightly better or easier plan for them. So, because they really didn’t need Trumps death for their plans, this time around, they opted for a plan were it is very hard to find hard evidence for a conspiracy when he gets shot (in contrast to the Kennedy assasination): This time they really just used one shooter, namely, the patsy Crooks, and hoped for the best result (kill Trump) while being also satisfied if it wouldn’t succeed. In that szenario there is only one potential hard evidence that can be left on the crime scene: the guy that was surely there to make sure to kill Crooks if someone else that wasn’t involved didn’t do it. The only thing the PTB would have needed to do in that scenario was to plan a security mismanagement that enabled Crooks to do what he did. In that scenario almost all evidence after the event against the official story can be made ambiguous quite easily while little to no hard evidence is left on the scene. It would also have been by far the easiest plan from a logistical perspective and in terms of covering up what really happened. Also, if that szenario is correct, much of what we have seen after the event and will see in the future isn’t a panicked hush hush operation at all, but also a plan that they now have switched to. It might also explain a number of the confusing elements we are seeing.

If the above isn’t what happened, I come back to the initial idea that there was a second real sniper situated near the angle of Crooks, possibly inside the rooftop building.