Beyond Incompetence; The Shooters & The Water Tower
(rumble.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (15)
sorted by:
One of the interesting things about the shot is that ONLY the first shot is the one that hit Trump and got close. The rest of the shots were fucking wild.
One of the rounds grazed a family member of a congressman who was sitting 15-30 feet to Trump's right, and 3' below him.
To me, this actually makes sense for the assassin being a poor shot. The only round that got close was the first shot he took, with the most time to do it with. After he missed, panic set in a bit and he started pulling his shots and making bad adjustments until he got smoked.
A second shooter is very unlikely. A second shooter wouldn't have missed all the other rounds, even if he missed the first. A second shooter would be audible. A second shooter could not have timed his shots with the primary shooter (especially being untrained).
Second shooters, frankly, are stupid. You're adding way more risk and complexity for very little gain.
I won't claim one way or another, but I will say that after his Covid and financial reporting, I'd seriously consider anything that Martensen says.
If I were guessing and there were two shooters, I'd say that the second shooter was the one that took the shot that grazed Trump's ear, and the patsy (let's face it, even if he was the lone shooter, he was a patsy) took the rest. The ear shot was a perfectly placed kill shot; Trump just moved at the last instant.
I will say, if the second shooter is the one that hit Trump, he probably wasn't on the water tower; I don't think the trajectories would line up.
I was/am suspecting a second shooter (as I've said, assuming the whole story about the officer on the roof is true, at least), but after looking at and thinking about the water tower theory more, I'm not sure I buy that specific part.
As for witnesses, people are hyped up, and trying to make sense of things. Gunshots also create echoes, and the tower will catch some of that. People are trying to make sense of a dramatic situation that just happened, and the water tower would be a prime location, so they may simply be subconsciously building a scenario that makes sense to them at the time.
If there was a second shooter, and if the second shooter is the one who winged Trump...I don't think he was in the water tower...which means you're now talking about a second and third shooter. Which is just getting more absurd.
If there was a second shooter, he was either farther out, or in the building that Crooks was on top of. Again, all this is just my theorizing, of course.
Certainly possible. I'm not saying anything definitively; we simply don't know enough. Maybe he was the sole shooter. I still think it would have been an amazing shot, if - if - the reporting is true that he'd just engaged an officer seconds earlier. If that story isn't completely correct though, it makes the 'Crooks was the lone shooter' theory completely plausible.
The shot timing would be easy, just fire as soon as Crooks does. That said...yeah, it does seem somewhat unlikely, since it does seem the first bullet hit Trump. You have to get really crazy, like completely suppressed shot fired right after the first shot, or something, for it to work at all.
So you're right that it gets unnecessarily and unrealistically complicated. Maybe Crooks did just get that (almost) lucky, maybe the reporting on the officer interaction was wrong. Because, again, that's my main reason for suspecting a second shooter and, if there are inaccuracies in that officer story, then I have no reason to think Crooks couldn't have made the shot as alleged.
Simultaneous shots are way harder than that. Ask the US Navy SEALs.
I'm not even clear on who fired the killing shot yet. I don't even know if it was the snipers on the roof that could be seen in the same frame as Trump. It might have been other snipers.
I'm talking about the officer who is alleged to have climbed up the ladder and then retreat after having Crooks aim a gun at him, directly prior to shooting at Trump.
If that's true, it raises serious doubts for me because in my opinion it makes Crooks' alleged shot really good under those circumstances. If that's what happened, I don't think he would be capable of that shot.
But, yeah, just to be clear, I'm not saying there was definitely a second shooter (and I'm not really buying the water tower theory, the more I think about it), just that there might have been, and it would explain some things.
It seems totally doable to have an automated sniper gun for this kind of fixed target.
Set it up, give it the wind speed and range, and it makes the perfect shot at any time without concern for breathing or heartbeat. Have the automated trigger shoot when the patsy shoots. Even much farther away the bullet will go faster than reaction time.
How would clandestine groups not have something like this? It seems so obvious. One that can track somebody in a motorcade or moving around, that might be too big and clumsy to deploy but something that can take a perfect fixed shot?
Smarter Every Day has made this kind of thing in their garage to show bullets hitting each other and other stuff like that.
It's wildly fucking difficult because it can't make the perfect shot each time. Talk to any sniper about how much you have to know about the temperature of your gun, the air, the terrain, humidity, the Coriolis Effect, and more. Bullets fire in a cone of fire. The further away you are, the larger the cone becomes.
An automated trigger? Bullets are fast. That electrical signal better not have any interference... on a metal roof.
These are spectacularly awful ideas that lead to a level of complexity that is astronomically impractical. Normally bribes are a lot easier and cheaper. There is literally no reason to go full "Shooter" when you can groom a retard and bribe a cop having a custody battle.
There's a reason we just used a bomb on that Iranian General.