Failed Trump Assassination Attempt

[Voyageur]

What do you think of this guy's method? A starting place?

Think he laid out the 3d field well, pretty good job osit (useful model). However, his shot sequence was not elaborated upon beyond 3 shots before the video ended. Think he had it that Crooks took the second shot from the counter sniper, and as he was dying Crooks shot left twice. Not sure how that was arrived at.

And even though he was holding the camera over his head he likely was still somewhere between 1 and 2 meters below Trumps head level. On that head level the line of sight was probably quite good from several places inside the rooftop building and on top.

Makes sense. Had not been able to tell exactly how high the stage with Trump on it was. Based on this photo, there are 6 risers, with the sixth (top) a pretty good step up (the first off the ground is not shown here, yet there is one). Anyway, that gives the stage near 6 ft. (1.8+ m) and Trump at 6.3 ft. (1.9+m) for around 12 ft. (3.65m) in total above ground level to top of head.

 

[aragorn]

What do you think of this guy's method? A starting place?

Pretty good model for the placements of buildings, bleachers and crane. What's missing is some kind of method to confirm the height of things, especially the bleachers and podium. This guy apparently assumes it's a 'lone shooter' and doesn't take into account that there might have been others, but I'm impressed by the capabilities of the software he's using – does anyone know what the software is?

 

[hlat]

For that to occur there had to have been an association. It does suggest Trump was not intimidated by him though so that is a point in his favour. But I doubt every single accusation of misconduct against Trump is an entire fabrication.

What are you trying to say? You think Trump is a pedophile or had sex with underage girls?

It's difficult for me to understand you associating Trump with Epstein.

 

[Voyageur]

For some reason, have not checked out anything from the Corbet Report in a long long time, so it came up and checked it out - sure enough, James and the Media Monarchy guy had their look - but not really at the field of who and how, it was only why (often a good premise). To them, though, most here looking at the small details are being foolish (okay, guilty ). For them it's the why endgame only. Their focus was on Vance (laughing at the QAnon gang and swap drainers), who in their thinking, in reality is a mere placeholder for Peter Thiel (Palantir et cetera) who will control Trump if he survives (similar to the Bush being controlled by Dick Cheney).

These two also draw attention to Jamie Diamond, who may have been tapped by Trump for Treasury and a host of others. The video itself runs to around 20 min, with 2 other stories behind that. They do not take this assassination business as serious (and never mentioned the people that really did die - not well done of them IMO).

People here look at details, too, as do others, never loosing sight on the why either, so don't know what their schtick was all about but though to mention it.

 

[Benjamin]

...it is now clad in white, not tan, tin.

Nope! Nope! That's not right. It's just the lighting. It's still clad in tan tin. No major exterior reno that I can claim.

There's a bunch of images ("butler, pa") on gettyimages. Nothing really we haven't seen already. But I did find one.

Some shoes get left behind.



That's a million dollar shoe now.

 

[Niall]

"Crooked Joe"

I watched the rally, and it was only a few minutes into the speech, when Trump referred to Biden as "Crooked Joe". Turns out, that there are Crooked Joe t-shirts and Trump often refers to Biden as Crooked Joe.

So the would-be assassin's name is Crooks.

I'm sure he was teased for his last name to some degree. Could Trumps usage of that phrase trigger the sniper to shoot in haste? I mean, the idea of assassination is to take out a single target... So one shot is all it takes and is needed, but he shoots in quick succession - like he was too eager to kill him. It was personal. But this is the way all the radicals are behaving these days - way too personal. "Crooked?! CROOKED!!! I'll show you Crooked!"

So, not only by turning his head at the right time did Trump avert his death, maybe the immaturity of the shooter sent him into a emotional state and insecurity that made him have a hissy-fit while aiming his rifle.

"Crooked" Joe, Kimberly Cheat-le...

 

[Niall]

It's a real tweet, but it's just a joke, as if Abe was watching over him.

...which also conveys understanding that Abe was whacked by essentially the same entities that attempted to whack Trump.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

These closer recordings are probably the most true to life because of how close they were. The CSPAN audio, or whatever the main audio for the event was, doesn't have a difference between the first three shots and the ones that followed, aside from the time between shots. Wonder if that's because of a sound board or whatever mixing they would've done for the event.

Main audio from the event has live processing that control dynamics (compression), which could partly explain (with the distance) why the first 3 shots and ones following sounds much more similar than in the recordings made with phones. I made this audio file where I cut both shot bursts from C-SPAN video and the second video used in Chris Martenson's analysis, and added eq (boosted several frequencies) in order to see if the differences can be brought up more audible in the C-SPAN audio also.

I think the echoes are a bit more audible now. I also noticed that the second burst of shots are few db louder in C-SPAN video, which could maybe support the evidence of shots being fired from different locations?

Not sure is this useful as the audio is now "tampered", but since the eq setting stays the same the whole time, it only brings forward what's already there in relation to both bursts of shots fired. (audio clips repeat four times with same eq setting, I've cut the time between bursts to make it easier to compare).

 

[Kadam303]

so far best wrap up till date

 

[Niall]

so far best wrap up till date

Eurgh, another one confusing pixellated shadow atop that watertower for 'a second gunman'.

 

[Jones]

so far best wrap up till date

Hello Kadam303, since this is your first post on the forum, you are invited to write an introduction post in the Newbies forum to tell us a bit about yourself and how you found your way here.

 

[Joe]

Main audio from the event has live processing that control dynamics (compression), which could partly explain (with the distance) why the first 3 shots and ones following sounds much more similar than in the recordings made with phones. I made this audio file where I cut both shot bursts from C-SPAN video and the second video used in Chris Martenson's analysis, and added eq (boosted several frequencies) in order to see if the differences can be brought up more audible in the C-SPAN audio also.

I think the echoes are a bit more audible now. I also noticed that the second burst of shots are few db louder in C-SPAN video, which could maybe support the evidence of shots being fired from different locations?

Not sure is this useful as the audio is now "tampered", but since the eq setting stays the same the whole time, it only brings forward what's already there in relation to both bursts of shots fired. (audio clips repeat four times with same eq setting, I've cut the time between bursts to make it easier to compare).

That's actually really helpful because you can hear very clearly the difference in the first 3 shots recorded from the phone at the side of the building and the subsequent 5 shots. The first three are somewhat "muffled" while the 5 are louder and have another element to them, like a 'canned' sound to them. I'm talking here about the 3 and then 5 shots that can be heard right from the start of your recording.

 

[loreta]

If they wanted to kill Trump they could have. When Trump got up with the help of his incompetent bodyguards, his head was uncovered, and that's when they could have shot and killed him. According to Sarkozy's former bodyguard, in a situation like this, the bodyguards must cover the person in danger from head to toe, even, he says, putting an umbrella in front of him so that the shooter, if he wants to shoot again, is unable to see his victim. According to him, in this video, which is, I apologise, only in French, the security with these bodyguards was dreadful. Poorly organised, poorly prepared.

He also says, interestingly, that when something like this happens, the ‘boss’ are the bodyguards, not the victim. The fact that Trump acted like that, raised his fist, etc, is not supposed to happen.

He insists it's his opinion.

Here is the video.

 

[RedFox]

Ok, adding a little more data.
I think I have found the exact 1st bullet impact site based on the hi-res photos I've looked at:

Source for reference: http://npr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com/c9/4f/99526bd0481e9d51e3e56ca29667/ap24195845267344.jpg

Can someone confirm this may be the first bullet impact?
From the videos the 1st shot appears to go between the two men, and from another angle you can see a puff of something behind them. If this is the impact site, then the puff would have been a shower of sparks/hot metal on impacting/glancing the aluminium railing.

Second, looking back over some other tweet threads, I found this (for the height of stage/Trump):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1814696769663750245

Correction: I didn’t see the stairs on the stage are on their own platform that is another 9” or so off the ground. That puts the platform at 4’ feet tall, Trump’s ear at 10’ off the ground

I would add that Trump was hunched over, so his ear was perhaps not quite 10' off the ground. But we'll call it that for now.
Based on the image above (if that is indeed the bullet impact), I'd eyeball that at 2 to 4 inched from the top (based on the assumption the top of the railings is 1 inch box).
The heights I found for these stands where 11'2" (from the supplier website of these particular stands) or 12'2" (from a supplier of these stands in general). So impact (if it is) is at 11'/10"10 or 12'/11"10
So that would seem to suggest rise of a minimum of 10 inches and a maximum of 24 inches (2ft).

Just to stick to inches, the distance (roughly) between Trump and the impact is about 985.
The elevated angles on those would be 0.58 and 1.39 respectively - assuming a straight line and no bullet drop.
[have run out of time posting, maybe someone else wants to run those angles/distances between Trump and the building]

There are still a lot of assumptions going on. The land the podium is on could be higher than the land the bleachers was on.

 

[Cosmos]

We are making an assumption that the shots from the real sniper assassin were taken from the windows, which of course is the most obvious. However, it is possible that some kind of concealed opening (roof line maybe) was crafted for the shots, something small that could be opened and closed quickly? The main thing wrong with this option is that a careful inch by inch inspection of the building could reveal this spot.

That’s actually a real possibility IMO, but, as you say, if that is the case, one would assume that that hidden opening was either already part of the structure or (less likely) a opening was used or prepared that can quickly be covered up again without much suspicion after the first three shots. If something like that happen I would assume that the hidden opening was probably already part of the structure or something was done to temporarily create an opening that can be covered up quickly without traces.