Artisan Well
Jedi
In the hearing today, posted elsewhere on this thread, the claim was made that the two officers who would have been doing overwatch from the windows were BOTH out looking for "Crooks"
Failed Trump Assassination Attempt
- Thread starter Tristan
- Start date
Benjamin
The Living Force
This looks like a slightly better version of the same video that was already posted a while ago. At least in this one I can see that windows 1, 2 and 4 are closed (instead of being erased) and the one side window is clearly open wide (the other is closed).
I would need to check it more carefully myself but for me the angles looks about right so that it should be possible for a Sniper inside the building to do the first three shots. The rising bullet seems to me to be pretty much in line with Trumps head/ear, the railing, both injured people and the Telehandler.
Also, something else to take into account: A bullet will always follow a ballistic curve instead of a straight line. The amount of couverture in the ballistic curve is mainly determined by the speed of the bullet. The faster the bullet, the shallower the curve and vis-à-vis.
A number of other points to take into account:
At what point in the couverture the bullet hit Trumps ear is unknown. If the shooter was farther away or closer, that also changes the point within the couverture when Trump was hit. The longer the shot the slower the bullet becomes at the end of the curve, thus the curve increases. The rail, both injured, and the Telehandler, are quite some distance away from Trumps head. In addition, the trajectory of the bullet that hit Trumps ear was certainly affected, by how much we don’t know. We don’t know if the other 2 bullets were also redirected during flight.
The way to check if an item has already been covered in this discussion is to search for a keyword (I chose "Austin" here) and select "this thread" in the drop-down menu next to it. Doing this I found this post about Austin Wealth Management from last Thursday.
New videos of SS and police on the roof, discussing things, including whether or not others individuals have been detained, and something about a guy on a bike. Not sure if that's a bicycle or a motorbike. There's another video of a girl talking about guy arriving on a harley davidson motorbike, not sure if that was posted here.
I was curious, so did a search for analysis of the attempted assassination in Russian, and it looks like there is nothing new, beside all kind of strange things that were noted right after the event. So there's that.
But I was also able to see Russian media talking about the CNN report about "three different weapons" that was posted on the 15th of July, and was also mentioned several times on this thread. But since I missed it the first time, I did some checking of my own, so apologies for mentioning the topic once again. I do have some questions that hopefully could be answered. Or please direct me to the relevant posts
Anyways, here's the quote again:
My first reaction was a surprise, because this news was reported by CNN. And as we know, CNN has an extremely poor record when it comes to reporting anything that goes against the mainstream agenda, and FBI at that point already denied that there were more shooters. So how come in this case CNN was the first and the main source to share something like this? On the other hand, maybe it's not a big deal if one doesn't equate "three weapons fired at Trump rally" with "three weapons fired at Trump".
That's essentially the line of defense that was taken by a "fact-checking" site called "Lead Stories". In the article they are debunking the claim that was shared on X that "Trump was shot with 3 different weapons".
They claim that they contacted the researchers by e-mail:
In the rest of the article they cite some further known facts, including this one:
Funny how the "fact checkers" allow themselves "coulds" when it fits them.
No hard data here, just an assumption on their part that "it could explain" why multiple weapons were supposedly heard, without having access to the acoustic findings and what kind of video the experts analyzed.
And also this one:
But if this communication with the researchers is legit, they didn't share any data of the analysis beside further clarification on the "acoustic impulses". One would expect that they at least would mention on what video exactly they based their findings, or were these several videos? Hopefully at some point they will be questioned in public regarding their findings, and this is when they will share more hardcore data.
I also had no idea what "acoustic impulse" is, so did a Google search. Based on the information here, acoustic impulse response is:
There is a very detailed explanation about it in the link, and I don't fully understand it, but the article also says this:
Ok, so considering the above, and if I understand it correctly, the same noise would sound differently from a different location. Meaning, that it could be problematic to ascertain how many different weapons were fired if listening to different recordings, because the videos or recording were taken from different locations and distances to the shots fired, right? Unless similar pattern of acoustic differences could be heard in different videos?
I mean, if in one video you stand in location x and record the sound of different bullets firing, they would sound differently if you were standing in location y. But the difference in the pattern of how different they sound would be the same, no? And if it is so, it is even more interesting to know on what kind of videos and recording the forensic experts based their findings. But maybe I am missing something?
If they compared several recordings and were able to hear a similar pattern, then this looks like a pretty good evidence. Then it would probably be a matter of establishing an exact timeline (if it would ever be possible) and know exactly when the snipers fired. And any shots that weren't fired by the police or secret service would be suspect.
Again, apologies if all of this was already discussed. I am a tad late to the "event".
Added: I just saw the following article that says:
The only word I have to say is "fascinating"! There is really a need for a detailed analysis by the researches that identified acoustic impulses from 3 sources.
But I was also able to see Russian media talking about the CNN report about "three different weapons" that was posted on the 15th of July, and was also mentioned several times on this thread. But since I missed it the first time, I did some checking of my own, so apologies for mentioning the topic once again. I do have some questions that hopefully could be answered. Or please direct me to the relevant posts
Anyways, here's the quote again:
My first reaction was a surprise, because this news was reported by CNN. And as we know, CNN has an extremely poor record when it comes to reporting anything that goes against the mainstream agenda, and FBI at that point already denied that there were more shooters. So how come in this case CNN was the first and the main source to share something like this? On the other hand, maybe it's not a big deal if one doesn't equate "three weapons fired at Trump rally" with "three weapons fired at Trump".
That's essentially the line of defense that was taken by a "fact-checking" site called "Lead Stories". In the article they are debunking the claim that was shared on X that "Trump was shot with 3 different weapons".
They claim that they contacted the researchers by e-mail:
In the rest of the article they cite some further known facts, including this one:
Funny how the "fact checkers" allow themselves "coulds" when it fits them.
No hard data here, just an assumption on their part that "it could explain" why multiple weapons were supposedly heard, without having access to the acoustic findings and what kind of video the experts analyzed.And also this one:
But if this communication with the researchers is legit, they didn't share any data of the analysis beside further clarification on the "acoustic impulses". One would expect that they at least would mention on what video exactly they based their findings, or were these several videos? Hopefully at some point they will be questioned in public regarding their findings, and this is when they will share more hardcore data.
I also had no idea what "acoustic impulse" is, so did a Google search. Based on the information here, acoustic impulse response is:
There is a very detailed explanation about it in the link, and I don't fully understand it, but the article also says this:
Ok, so considering the above, and if I understand it correctly, the same noise would sound differently from a different location. Meaning, that it could be problematic to ascertain how many different weapons were fired if listening to different recordings, because the videos or recording were taken from different locations and distances to the shots fired, right? Unless similar pattern of acoustic differences could be heard in different videos?
I mean, if in one video you stand in location x and record the sound of different bullets firing, they would sound differently if you were standing in location y. But the difference in the pattern of how different they sound would be the same, no? And if it is so, it is even more interesting to know on what kind of videos and recording the forensic experts based their findings. But maybe I am missing something?
If they compared several recordings and were able to hear a similar pattern, then this looks like a pretty good evidence. Then it would probably be a matter of establishing an exact timeline (if it would ever be possible) and know exactly when the snipers fired. And any shots that weren't fired by the police or secret service would be suspect.
Again, apologies if all of this was already discussed. I am a tad late to the "event".
Added: I just saw the following article that says:
The only word I have to say is "fascinating"!
There is really a need for a detailed analysis by the researches that identified acoustic impulses from 3 sources.
Last edited:
What if it's got something to do with knowledge protects and without anticipation? Trump has to have known that there was a good chance that someone would try to assassinate him given his stance and popularity, he probably also knows the ways that can happen including having a dodgy security detail. However, despite all that his free will choice is to hang around and MAGA. Without anticipation could be reflected by not getting hung up on the details of how or when the attempt might happen or how he will survive it. It seems to me that anticipation enters when there is fear - either fear of something happening or something not happening. So no matter the details that arise that might trigger fear, he just has to hang on to the choice that he's made. Or something like that.
It also occurs to me that Trumps enemies may just believe that he will issue orders for them to be taken out. He was prepared to take out Soleimani to prevent a war.
page doesn't exist. How many casings were there?
Link error for me in the US.
Goemon_
The Living Force
The post was suppressed. I'm trying to find the video elsewhere.
Artisan Well
Jedi
Thank you!
Artisan Well
Jedi
Sharyl Attkisson, herself a journalist target by the deep state who has been fighting in the courts for a decade, has observations about the body cam footage that are notable.
