As much as I'd love to say "I told you so"...the absolute fuck am I supposed to be seeing here? This is absolutely nothing.
If they mean the slight movement in the top left of the tower...looks like a tree branch?
As someone who does think there may have been a second shooter...this is fucking embarrassing.
This is the damning video proof?
I'm calling CIA psyop, to discredit the brave patriots who got too close to the truth! /s
I thought the tower was an important position, but relatively quickly dismissed it since that's clearly not where Trump was shot from. There may still be a second shooter, but this is useless fucking bullshit. Ridiculous.
Yeah, this is some CSI "enhance" bullshit, you can't even make out the ladder on the side at this blurry ass resolution, you might as well be seeing jesus in your toast looking for definitive details in that mess.
This is like UFO footage. I don't see anything except the logo. More importantly I don't understand this second shooter theory. Why would there have to be a second shooter? What is unconvincing about a single shooter?
It doesn't need to be more convincing, it needs to implicate the Deep State further and not be completely incredible. The theory is that Ree Tardy Oswald was a patsy who was supposed to start firing and then someone else was supposed to take the shot that actually killed Trump. Absent something clearer than the ~6 pixels that's supposed to be a person up there (that isn't part of Trump's security team, which I would find more likely, given that's the highest point in the area as far as I can tell) I don't see any reason to speculate about a second shooter.
Firstly, I get what you're saying, I get your position, and I'm not attacking you, I'm agreeing.
It doesn't need to be more convincing
It needs to be not retarded, though.
...it needs to implicate the Deep State further and not be completely incredible.
This fails, and makes people look retarded.
I do think there very well might have been a second shooter, and I've been called ridiculous for that belief...this does nothing toward advancing that position.
The theory is that Ree Tardy Oswald was a patsy who was supposed to start firing and then someone else was supposed to take the shot that actually killed Trump.
This footage does nothing to advance that either. Again, that's something I also believe to be a very strong possibility, but this does nothing to advance that.
As an Unhinged Conspiracy Theorist...this footage is fucking embarrassing. Fuck off with this bullshit, whoever is pushing this.
Yeah, this footage is retarded. The idea isn't retarded on it's face, but so far there isn't anything I've seen to make that more credible than the idea that there was just a single shooter.
Remember that the term "Conspiracy theory" was coined by the CIA to discredit people who were revealing actual government conspiracies. The idea that they would go a step further and put forward retarded theories to discredit people talking about legitimate conspiracies isn't far fetched, but since social media has suddenly given every retard a reach of millions to billions of people, they probably don't even have to do that.
so far there isn't anything I've seen to make that more credible than the idea that there was just a single shooter.
I'll give you my take, if you're interested (or if you're not!): I find it absurd, the official story that this untrained retard managed to make that shot, when you add the official story that a police officer just reached the roof and Crooks aimed his rifle at him. It's one thing to nearly make a headshot at 130 yards, it's a completely different story to do it after your life is just officially over, your cover blown, your timeframe is reduced to practically zero, you're like 100% adrenaline, and you took your scope off your target.
That's what got me first seriously thinking there may have been a second shooter. That's an absurd shot for a seeming novice, if that is indeed what happened. Not buying that story.
Remember that the term "Conspiracy theory" was coined by the CIA to discredit people...
Yeah, I'm never forgetting that, I'm well aware. Fucking spooks.
I'm just glad they don't operate on American soil!
Could have been luck, could have been training, the story that he wasn't allowed on his school shooting team for being bad could be a lie, could be a second shooter, or about a dozen other things.
About the only thing it can't be, is staged by the Trump campaign.
Wait, is the implication that the person was at the very top? That's a fucking shadow! And it wouldn't make sense to put a sniper on top anyway. Again, useless fucking footage.
If someone had tried to shoot a left-wing leader, do you think the left would be tying itself up in knots with increasingly complex and unlikely theories, examining every image, every video and every bit of evidence with microscopic detail, endlessly muddying the waters and constantly trying to one-up each other with just how next-level their (((noticing))) is, in a desperate, self-aggrandizing effort to prove they're the smartest retard on the internet?
Of course not, because the left knows how to claim a victory when one is handed to them.
We have the perfect narrative to run with here. A kid who's been saturated since the age of 12 with anti-Trump, anti-conservative, anti-MAGA propaganda tried to kill the legitimate President of the United States and the entire media and political establishment is complicit. We should be hammering these points home with crystal clarity to anyone who will listen. Especially here, on a forum that emerged from a movement whose core mission was exposing the corruption, dishonesty, hyperbole, slander and divisiveness of the establishment media, there is no reason to be bending over backwards in order to undermine that narrative.
Stop trying to confuse the issue. You're not smarter than everyone else. You have nothing to prove here beyond your ability to cut the legs out from under your own side just as our moral victory becomes so unassailable that even the mainstream media is falling in line behind our talking points.
Everyone engaging in this stupid behavior is handing a weapon to the enemy. Cut it out.
If someone had tried to shoot a left-wing leader, do you think the left would be tying itself up in knots with increasingly complex and unlikely theories, examining every image, every video and every bit of evidence with microscopic detail...
No, because they're retarded...and like to win.
But, seriously...I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Why I personally suspect a (potential) second shooter may exist is because I don't think Crooks could have made the shot if, if, the reporting is accurate that he was confronted right before firing. The official story is that he was left up there for like half an hour, then a cop checked on him, he takes his scope off his target to aim at the officer, realizes he's blown, adrenaline spikes, his time frame is now a couple seconds, and yet he reacquires his target and nearly gets a headshot. Assuming that report is correct, I don't believe some random schlub can make that shot, under those circumstances. And that's currently the official story we're supposed to believe.
I was all onboard the "Crooks is the lone shooter" (but may have been allowed access) theory, up until this shit with the officer on the roof. After that, I'm suspecting a potential second sniper.
That's not me trying to "one-up" anyone, or in any attempt at "self-aggrandizement," that's me legitimately trying to make the current reported facts fit the events as they unfolded. I don't believe Crooks could have made the shot, if the current version of events is correct.
The current version of events simply doesn't seem to make sense, if Crooks was truly a lone wolf. If the cop is lying to save face, sure. If Crooks was drugged to the gills and had little to no adrenal reaction to the officer confronting him, maybe.
But all that seems less likely than that perhaps someone else was involved.
Again, not trying to be a "conspiracy theorist," or anything. Just trying to make sense of things.
Perhaps Crooks was a lone wolf. That's certainly possible.
Especially here, on a forum that emerged from a movement whose core mission was exposing the corruption, dishonesty, hyperbole, slander and divisiveness of the establishment media, there is no reason to be bending over backwards in order to undermine that narrative.
It's not an undermining of the narrative. If we truly care about confronting the corruption, I truly believe that does involve determining the truth. I don't want to run with a lie, just because it's convenient. Confronting the corrupting has to involve speaking the truth.
Look, someone tried to kill Trump, 100%. We can absolutely run with that, while also looking at the evidence and trying to figure out exactly who that person or entity may have been. Both can be true. This was an attempted assassination on Trump; we can go with that, because it's true. Crooks tried to kill Trump, that's also almost certainly true. But there's more going on, too, I'm convinced.
You're not smarter than everyone else.
Not everyone, no. But I'm significantly smarter than your average retard. And, yes, I acknowledge this is what your average retard would say.
...even the mainstream media is falling in line behind our talking points.
The mainstream media is fucking retarded. And were also brutally attacking Biden for weeks prior to this event. I'm not going to start believing the media, just because it's convenient to my side.
Are we really supposed to believe some retarded twenty year old loser pretty much nailed a headshot on the presidential frontrunner of the USA, under extremely stressful circumstances? That might be the most ridiculous thing yet.
Obviously something deeper happened on July 13th than just one lone wolf retard. I'm not disputing that. But you've completely missed my point.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
He's not dead. We won. Regardless of whether this was a deep-state hit or just a kid with a gun, we have what we need to press home our narrative advantage. This happened because media hysteria created an environment where it was inevitable. At least for now, there is no reason to waste time confusing ourselves when we should be piledriving them all into the dirt with that reality.
The only conspiracies worth chasing are the obvious ones, like why was the roof open with no eyes on it, why were warning ignored, especially when the guy had been acting suspicious for well over an hour?
Still seems like some people from the inside helped, but the water tower stuff seems pointless when there are so many other obvious loose ends they left.
Summary: the audio for the first 3 shots sounds completely different than the next 5 or 6 shots; there is no echo, it sounds slightly muffled. The first shot appears to have hit the top of the bleachers, slightly above Trump, which suggests an upward angle, not a downward angle. The reports from the gunshots are timed differently, which would only happen if they were fired from (at the very least) different weapons, but probably different distances as well.
That's very interesting! I had no reason to believe a second shooter, but the audio doesn't lie. ~Someone will need to explain it away better than this guy.~ Before I had just assumed the later shots were multiple counter-sniper rounds. They killed Crooks with one but that doesn't mean others didn't take shots.
Edit: I found a response thread from another analyst who convincingly dismisses both the second shooter and water tower theories. The gunshots on some videos sound different because of microphone direction, and the water tower doesn't have a line of site to the stage. u/Kienanu/evilplushie.
That's better evidence, if they actually play it, than that guy who did a forty minute video and then said "subscribe to my Patreon to hear the audio" or whatever. LOL.
Oh, this is that same guy. I hope he's at least actually playing the audio this time around. I'll check it out tomorrow. He's also one of the 'water tower' people, so we'll see.
He's not made any claims about a shooter being on the water tower. His claim about the water tower is that it is inexplicable that they wouldn't have posted someone on it.
The audio suggests that it's more likely that the first three shots came from inside a building.
As much as I'd love to say "I told you so"...the absolute fuck am I supposed to be seeing here? This is absolutely nothing.
If they mean the slight movement in the top left of the tower...looks like a tree branch?
As someone who does think there may have been a second shooter...this is fucking embarrassing.
This is the damning video proof?
I'm calling CIA psyop, to discredit the brave patriots who got too close to the truth! /s
I thought the tower was an important position, but relatively quickly dismissed it since that's clearly not where Trump was shot from. There may still be a second shooter, but this is useless fucking bullshit. Ridiculous.
Yeah, this is some CSI "enhance" bullshit, you can't even make out the ladder on the side at this blurry ass resolution, you might as well be seeing jesus in your toast looking for definitive details in that mess.
This is like UFO footage. I don't see anything except the logo. More importantly I don't understand this second shooter theory. Why would there have to be a second shooter? What is unconvincing about a single shooter?
It doesn't need to be more convincing, it needs to implicate the Deep State further and not be completely incredible. The theory is that Ree Tardy Oswald was a patsy who was supposed to start firing and then someone else was supposed to take the shot that actually killed Trump. Absent something clearer than the ~6 pixels that's supposed to be a person up there (that isn't part of Trump's security team, which I would find more likely, given that's the highest point in the area as far as I can tell) I don't see any reason to speculate about a second shooter.
Firstly, I get what you're saying, I get your position, and I'm not attacking you, I'm agreeing.
It needs to be not retarded, though.
This fails, and makes people look retarded.
I do think there very well might have been a second shooter, and I've been called ridiculous for that belief...this does nothing toward advancing that position.
This footage does nothing to advance that either. Again, that's something I also believe to be a very strong possibility, but this does nothing to advance that.
As an Unhinged Conspiracy Theorist...this footage is fucking embarrassing. Fuck off with this bullshit, whoever is pushing this.
Yeah, this footage is retarded. The idea isn't retarded on it's face, but so far there isn't anything I've seen to make that more credible than the idea that there was just a single shooter.
Remember that the term "Conspiracy theory" was coined by the CIA to discredit people who were revealing actual government conspiracies. The idea that they would go a step further and put forward retarded theories to discredit people talking about legitimate conspiracies isn't far fetched, but since social media has suddenly given every retard a reach of millions to billions of people, they probably don't even have to do that.
I'll give you my take, if you're interested (or if you're not!): I find it absurd, the official story that this untrained retard managed to make that shot, when you add the official story that a police officer just reached the roof and Crooks aimed his rifle at him. It's one thing to nearly make a headshot at 130 yards, it's a completely different story to do it after your life is just officially over, your cover blown, your timeframe is reduced to practically zero, you're like 100% adrenaline, and you took your scope off your target.
That's what got me first seriously thinking there may have been a second shooter. That's an absurd shot for a seeming novice, if that is indeed what happened. Not buying that story.
Yeah, I'm never forgetting that, I'm well aware. Fucking spooks.
I'm just glad they don't operate on American soil!
Could have been luck, could have been training, the story that he wasn't allowed on his school shooting team for being bad could be a lie, could be a second shooter, or about a dozen other things.
About the only thing it can't be, is staged by the Trump campaign.
Wait, is the implication that the person was at the very top? That's a fucking shadow! And it wouldn't make sense to put a sniper on top anyway. Again, useless fucking footage.
I'm getting sick of this shit.
If someone had tried to shoot a left-wing leader, do you think the left would be tying itself up in knots with increasingly complex and unlikely theories, examining every image, every video and every bit of evidence with microscopic detail, endlessly muddying the waters and constantly trying to one-up each other with just how next-level their (((noticing))) is, in a desperate, self-aggrandizing effort to prove they're the smartest retard on the internet?
Of course not, because the left knows how to claim a victory when one is handed to them.
We have the perfect narrative to run with here. A kid who's been saturated since the age of 12 with anti-Trump, anti-conservative, anti-MAGA propaganda tried to kill the legitimate President of the United States and the entire media and political establishment is complicit. We should be hammering these points home with crystal clarity to anyone who will listen. Especially here, on a forum that emerged from a movement whose core mission was exposing the corruption, dishonesty, hyperbole, slander and divisiveness of the establishment media, there is no reason to be bending over backwards in order to undermine that narrative.
Stop trying to confuse the issue. You're not smarter than everyone else. You have nothing to prove here beyond your ability to cut the legs out from under your own side just as our moral victory becomes so unassailable that even the mainstream media is falling in line behind our talking points.
Everyone engaging in this stupid behavior is handing a weapon to the enemy. Cut it out.
No, because they're retarded...and like to win.
But, seriously...I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Why I personally suspect a (potential) second shooter may exist is because I don't think Crooks could have made the shot if, if, the reporting is accurate that he was confronted right before firing. The official story is that he was left up there for like half an hour, then a cop checked on him, he takes his scope off his target to aim at the officer, realizes he's blown, adrenaline spikes, his time frame is now a couple seconds, and yet he reacquires his target and nearly gets a headshot. Assuming that report is correct, I don't believe some random schlub can make that shot, under those circumstances. And that's currently the official story we're supposed to believe.
I was all onboard the "Crooks is the lone shooter" (but may have been allowed access) theory, up until this shit with the officer on the roof. After that, I'm suspecting a potential second sniper.
That's not me trying to "one-up" anyone, or in any attempt at "self-aggrandizement," that's me legitimately trying to make the current reported facts fit the events as they unfolded. I don't believe Crooks could have made the shot, if the current version of events is correct.
The current version of events simply doesn't seem to make sense, if Crooks was truly a lone wolf. If the cop is lying to save face, sure. If Crooks was drugged to the gills and had little to no adrenal reaction to the officer confronting him, maybe.
But all that seems less likely than that perhaps someone else was involved.
Again, not trying to be a "conspiracy theorist," or anything. Just trying to make sense of things.
Perhaps Crooks was a lone wolf. That's certainly possible.
It's not an undermining of the narrative. If we truly care about confronting the corruption, I truly believe that does involve determining the truth. I don't want to run with a lie, just because it's convenient. Confronting the corrupting has to involve speaking the truth.
Look, someone tried to kill Trump, 100%. We can absolutely run with that, while also looking at the evidence and trying to figure out exactly who that person or entity may have been. Both can be true. This was an attempted assassination on Trump; we can go with that, because it's true. Crooks tried to kill Trump, that's also almost certainly true. But there's more going on, too, I'm convinced.
Not everyone, no. But I'm significantly smarter than your average retard. And, yes, I acknowledge this is what your average retard would say.
The mainstream media is fucking retarded. And were also brutally attacking Biden for weeks prior to this event. I'm not going to start believing the media, just because it's convenient to my side.
Are we really supposed to believe some retarded twenty year old loser pretty much nailed a headshot on the presidential frontrunner of the USA, under extremely stressful circumstances? That might be the most ridiculous thing yet.
Obviously something deeper happened on July 13th than just one lone wolf retard. I'm not disputing that. But you've completely missed my point.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
He's not dead. We won. Regardless of whether this was a deep-state hit or just a kid with a gun, we have what we need to press home our narrative advantage. This happened because media hysteria created an environment where it was inevitable. At least for now, there is no reason to waste time confusing ourselves when we should be piledriving them all into the dirt with that reality.
Not nearly -- did get a headshot. The head just happened to move at the last instant, potentially even after the shot had already been fired.
Would a trained sniper have missed? What if they deliberately missed to get Trump supporters to think a miracle happened?
It could be some kind of 3D Chess trap they're laying.
I agree. I'm not opposed to digging into it more just in case, but it needs to be strong evidence and not schizo shit.
You can also see how they take advantage of the schizo right with that Iranian angle they threw out there, too.
The only conspiracies worth chasing are the obvious ones, like why was the roof open with no eyes on it, why were warning ignored, especially when the guy had been acting suspicious for well over an hour?
Still seems like some people from the inside helped, but the water tower stuff seems pointless when there are so many other obvious loose ends they left.
Better 2nd shooter theory, with non-retarded evidence: Audio Analysis is 100% Clear: Trump & Crowd Were Shot At By Two Separate People
Summary: the audio for the first 3 shots sounds completely different than the next 5 or 6 shots; there is no echo, it sounds slightly muffled. The first shot appears to have hit the top of the bleachers, slightly above Trump, which suggests an upward angle, not a downward angle. The reports from the gunshots are timed differently, which would only happen if they were fired from (at the very least) different weapons, but probably different distances as well.
That's very interesting! I had no reason to believe a second shooter, but the audio doesn't lie. ~
Someone will need to explain it away better than this guy.~ Before I had just assumed the later shots were multiple counter-sniper rounds. They killed Crooks with one but that doesn't mean others didn't take shots.Edit: I found a response thread from another analyst who convincingly dismisses both the second shooter and water tower theories. The gunshots on some videos sound different because of microphone direction, and the water tower doesn't have a line of site to the stage. u/Kienan u/evilplushie.
That's better evidence, if they actually play it, than that guy who did a forty minute video and then said "subscribe to my Patreon to hear the audio" or whatever. LOL.
Oh, this is that same guy. I hope he's at least actually playing the audio this time around. I'll check it out tomorrow. He's also one of the 'water tower' people, so we'll see.
He plays the audio many many times.
He's not made any claims about a shooter being on the water tower. His claim about the water tower is that it is inexplicable that they wouldn't have posted someone on it.
The audio suggests that it's more likely that the first three shots came from inside a building.