Failed Trump Assassination Attempt

Another point that speaks against a proposed window shooter in that Crooks building is the fact that the FBI apparently gave the guy above his phone back with the above video still on it. Why give the phone back and/or not deleting that footage if there was such a shooter behind any of those windows? And if there was such a shooter, maybe they have analyzed the footage and came to the same conclusion as we, that you can't make out anything substantial there and that's why they gave it back? Or did they doctor the footage before they gave it back to the guy? Again, going by occam's razor, the simplest explanation is probably that the FBI knows that there was no second shooter behind any of those windows on Crooks building (and/or within somewhere else within that building) and therefore considered it safe to give that footage back. Also, the idea that a second shooter might have escaped quickly out of that building (or another building there) after the shots through that parking lot seems less likely because the guy above is also filming that area shortly after the shots. That doesn't mean though that the hypothesized second shooter didn't escape through that parking lot, because he could have escaped at a later point than it is shown in the footage.
 
As far as I can see, the only real sticking points that speak against Crooks shooting the bullet that hit Trumps ear (and possibly the following 2 shots) are:

The gun he used, with those red dot type sights, the distance to Trumps head, and Crooks apparently being more or less of an amateur shooter (plus the fact that he was probably already aware that he has been discovered before the first shot). In that type of context, it seems to be a very difficult thing to hit Trumps ear WITH THE FIRST SHOT, while THE SECOND SHOT quite possibly was also quite close to Trumps head. It seems like a very difficult thing to accomplish, but maybe, Crooks just managed to get at least one, or two, perfect initial shots by accident? Or it was right there that "the divine intervention" occurred? Directing his first and second shot? If so, was the directing meant to do what we have seen? Or was it meant to hit Trumps head?
 
Cosmos said:
Another point that speaks against a proposed window shooter in that Crooks building is the fact that the FBI apparently gave the guy above his phone back with the above video still on it. Why give the phone back and/or not deleting that footage if there was such a shooter behind any of those windows? And if there was such a shooter, maybe they have analyzed the footage and came to the same conclusion as we, that you can't make out anything substantial there and that's why they gave it back? Or did they doctor the footage before they gave it back to the guy? Again, going by occam's razor, the simplest explanation is probably that the FBI knows that there was no second shooter behind any of those windows on Crooks building (and/or within somewhere else within that building) and therefore considered it safe to give that footage back. Also, the idea that a second shooter might have escaped quickly out of that building (or another building there) after the shots through that parking lot seems less likely because the guy above is also filming that area shortly after the shots. That doesn't mean though that the hypothesized second shooter didn't escape through that parking lot, because he could have escaped at a later point than it is shown in the footage.
Click to expand...
Well, there's also the possibility that those of the FBI who questioned him were less astute and not 'in the club'. Incompetent federal workers are almost the norm these days.

Maybe it wasn't that smart of this 'Dave' guy to advertise that he has hours of video and that "there's more to come". I hope he stays safe!

ADDED: Just a note that I think this 'investigator' John Cullen on X is leading people astray intentionally. He's the one who proposes a shot from 400ft, and his style of replying is quite mean. Maybe a hired misinformant, I don't trust him.
 
Mark7 said:
Normally STO 4D forces don't meddle in 3D affairs, but STS forces do. A basic question set for the C's would be: were there hyperdimensional forces at work during the assassination? If so were they STS or STO?
Click to expand...

It may just be a case of real life 'plot armor', I.e. Trump was saved because he still has an important part to play, and you can't necessarily say it's either STS or STO.

One does wonder how common such things actually are. How many good or truly evil men through history have survived miraculously because they still had a part to play?

One that comes to mind is Robert Clive, who somehow tried twice, unsuccessfully, to shoot himself. Later on in life, his savage methods were an important driver of the British East India Company's success in conquering and raping Bengal, which some argue led in domino fashion to the American revolution.
 
Carl said:
It may just be a case of real life 'plot armor', I.e. Trump was saved because he still has an important part to play, and you can't necessarily say it's either STS or STO.
Click to expand...

Yep, I definitely lean in that direction too:

It isn’t that easy to understand and/or say if “higher“ STS or STO forces are at play in occurrences of that sort. Or some sort of a mixture. Best we might be able to do at this level is to get as brought of a picture of what happened as possible and then see how things develop in the long run after the occurrence. It might be that we can only try to “truly make sense“ of such occurrences in hindsight, sometimes, years or decades (or more) later. And even then we probably have quite limited abilities to understand.
 
As I was scrolling through this thread from the beginning, I rediscovered Joe’s post on X and the associated video in which you hear the last shot that comes incredibly late at 22 seconds. Maybe I’ve missed it, but in the more recent analyses, e.g. by Martenson, this last shot is not scrutinized, and the reason for it isn’t given. If I’ve got it right, the consensus appears to be that the SS shot that killed Crooks was the 9th shot. So, how does this 10th shot that comes much later fit in? If the 9th shot was by the SS or some rogue agent, and it was a single shot (which could be interpreted as the shot having the intended effect: it appeared to kill/neutralize Crooks), then what was the 10th shot for? Maybe the later 10th shot was to make completely sure that Crooks was dead, so that he couldn’t be questioned?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1812450065266405443
 
Cosmos said:
As far as I can see, the only real sticking points that speak against Crooks shooting the bullet that hit Trumps ear (and possibly the following 2 shots) are:

The gun he used, with those red dot type sights, the distance to Trumps head, and Crooks apparently being more or less of an amateur shooter (plus the fact that he was probably already aware that he has been discovered before the first shot). In that type of context, it seems to be a very difficult thing to hit Trumps ear WITH THE FIRST SHOT, while THE SECOND SHOT quite possibly was also quite close to Trumps head. It seems like a very difficult thing to accomplish, but maybe, Crooks just managed to get at least one, or two, perfect initial shots by accident? Or it was right there that "the divine intervention" occurred? Directing his first and second shot? If so, was the directing meant to do what we have seen? Or was it meant to hit Trumps head?
Click to expand...
Even though the first shot struck Trump's ear, and would've caught him in the brain if Trump hadn't have moved his head slightly, the shot was still about 4 inches to the left of center, i.e. not a perfect shot. The second shot was even farther off target, given that Trump had moved his head back to its original position by that point. And the third shot seems like it was a bit farther off target too. (The very slight shortening of the timing between shockwave and muzzle blasts of shots 2 and 3 captured by Trump's mic would support that, assuming all three bullets came from the same rifle.) I don't think any of the sticking points against Crooks being able to take those shots are very strong. Not saying for sure that he did, though, just that the evidence we have at this point is at least consistent with the possibility. (For him being an amateur, see these posts and this one.) If we get an accurate 3D model to play with, that would go some way in narrowing down the range of possibilities, though.
 
aragorn said:
As I was scrolling through this thread from the beginning, I rediscovered Joe’s post on X and the associated video in which you hear the last shot that comes incredibly late at 22 seconds. Maybe I’ve missed it, but in the more recent analyses, e.g. by Martenson, this last shot is not scrutinized, and the reason for it isn’t given. If I’ve got it right, the consensus appears to be that the SS shot that killed Crooks was the 9th shot. So, how does this 10th shot that comes much later fit in? If the 9th shot was by the SS or some rogue agent, and it was a single shot (which could be interpreted as the shot having the intended effect: it appeared to kill/neutralize Crooks), then what was the 10th shot for? Maybe the later 10th shot was to make completely sure that Crooks was dead, so that he couldn’t be questioned?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1812450065266405443
Click to expand...
Yeah, so far I don't think there has even been an official acknowledgment that more than one shot was fired after the initial 8! I can't find the article, but just a few days after the shooting, the Butler County district attorney claimed that the Butler ESU fired a shot at Crooks, but there has been no follow-up on that from anyone as far as I can tell.

EDIT: Found it:

July 18: Butler DA: Local officer shot at, possibly hit Trump’s would-be assassin
A member of the Butler County Emergency Services Unit fired at and may have hit Thomas Matthew Crooks [...]

District Attorney Richard Goldinger said on Thursday that the unit member, who he did not identify, may have hit Crooks, but that has not been officially confirmed.

"It was reported that (Crooks) had a reaction, but (the ESU officer) did not fire the kill shot," Goldinger said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Approaching Infinity said:
Even though the first shot struck Trump's ear, and would've caught him in the brain if Trump hadn't have moved his head slightly, the shot was still about 4 inches to the left of center, i.e. not a perfect shot. The second shot was even farther off target, given that Trump had moved his head back to its original position by that point. And the third shot seems like it was a bit farther off target too. (The very slight shortening of the timing between shockwave and muzzle blasts of shots 2 and 3 captured by Trump's mic would support that, assuming all three bullets came from the same rifle.) I don't think any of the sticking points against Crooks being able to take those shots are very strong. Not saying for sure that he did, though, just that the evidence we have at this point is at least consistent with the possibility. (For him being an amateur, see these posts and this one.) If we get an accurate 3D model to play with, that would go some way in narrowing down the range of possibilities, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at this point I’m pretty much back at saying that the theory that Crooks was the only one shooting is the best theory so far among all presented.

As brought up earlier, the question of why that was the case has many probable and likely reasons, chief among it being that something didn’t go as planned in some fashion. There alone we can find many probable and easily explainable scenarios.

For example, a simple and even just slight timing issue could have been the cause:

Let’s say, that it was indeed planned that at least one real sniper should make the important shots and that Crooks was supposed to be blamed as the patsy. In that case, Crooks going up the roof just a couple of minutes (or even seconds) too early could have been enough that the real sniper/-s didn’t have the time/means to go into position. So Crooks started to shoot earlier as planned. That alone could explain a lot of things easily.

And if that’s the case or another “didn’t work out as planned“ scenario, it is feasible to assume that if certain thresholds are crossed you can’t cancel an operation of that kind anymore, since for example, the patsy could have already been activated, and they couldn’t stop the operation anymore.

Or the real sniper/-s weren’t able to position themselves where they were supposed to be simply because tiny local circumstances prevented them from doing so, just minutes or seconds before Crooks shot. For example: a sniper wasn’t able to get into a room from which he was supposed to shoot, because, at the last minute, some person/-s prevented him from doing so because they were going in the room or inadvertently blocking the entrance.

Or another really simple explanation: The real sniper/-s weren’t able to reach their locations in time because they were stuck in traffic or something.

MANY possibilities for why it could have gone “not as planned“.
 
Last edited:
Since the phone was with the FBI, and the technology exists for deepfakes and tinkering of video/audio, couldn't the FBI just delete what they wanted and plant what they want people to see?

The 2004 movie Manchurian Candidate showed the FBI deleting the real shooter and replacing him with a patsy, and then releasing the altered footage.
 
Joe said:
Don't see how you can draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...
The ground floor is ruled out because people civilians and police were there - and visible to each other - before and during the shooting. Plus we now see that that fence obstructs shots from a ground-floor window. Plus all those windows are visibly closed throughout.

So I suppose a more precise conclusion is: it was just Crooks shooting... from that building.

It's possible the first three shots were fired from the building behind Crooks, but all we've got is 2/3 SS agents behaving strangely.

Which is our only clue to a simple and bold scenario: they were in fact planted among the overall security arrangement to fire off the first three shots, and them 'going walkabout' to 'find Crooks' and 'forget their access card' is straight-up BS because they were in position the whole time to fire the initial shots and 'trigger' Crooks.
 
hlat said:
Since the phone was with the FBI, and the technology exists for deepfakes and tinkering of video/audio, couldn't the FBI just delete what they wanted and plant what they want people to see?

The 2004 movie Manchurian Candidate showed the FBI deleting the real shooter and replacing him with a patsy, and then releasing the altered footage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the far easier way would have been just to delete that video and/or not give the phone back. Yet they gave it back with the video on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom