An AR-15's range is ~600yds, why was the Secret Service's perimeter shorter than one of the most popular weapons in the US? —@AOC pic.twitter.com/I98Me2LUAR

— Brennan Murphy (@brenonade) July 22, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

Have u listened to the 2nd youtube link I posted on the other thread?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

---

Thank you. This is a much better reply than your others.

I agree and want to see some experts (not a part of the government) independently go over his findings.

I agree on your guess on the 1st the being calm and the 2nd set of 5 being chaotic...but that doesnt explain the sound differences OR more importantly, the distance differences.

For those that havent watch the 2nd sound video, there is an exact lapse of time for the 1st 3 shots (i think 0.022) between the shockwace of the bullet going by an on stage microphone and the sound of the shot from the gun. (The bullet travels faster than the sound of the gun firing.)
The 2nd set of 5 shots are all 0.021 apart - which is a lot of distance when a bullet is traveling that fast. The 2nd set of shots are all uniform at 0.021, meaning the 2 sets of shots not only sound massively different, they are from very different distances.

A 2nd gunman. A pro that got unlucky because Trump turned his head at the exact right millisecond. Thank God.

nein51 said:

---

Or he visited an art museum like a whole host of people do every day.

---

Maybe, but this isn't his phone. This is tracking locations to his house and elsewhere by others.

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

---

Thank you. This is a much better reply than your others.

I agree and want to see some experts (not a part of the government) independently go over his findings.

I agree on your guess on the 1st the being calm and the 2nd set of 5 being chaotic...but that doesnt explain the sound differences OR more importantly, the distance differences.

For those that havent watch the 2nd sound video, there is an exact lapse of time for the 1st 3 shots (i think 0.022) between the shockwace of the bullet going by an on stage microphone and the sound of the shot from the gun. (The bullet travels faster than the sound of the gun firing.)
The 2nd set of 5 shots are all 0.021 apart - which is a lot of distance when a bullet is traveling that fast. The 2nd set of shots are all uniform at 0.021, meaning the 2 sets of shots not only sound massively different, they are from very different distances.

A 2nd gunman. A pro that got unlucky because Trump turned his head at the exact right millisecond. Thank God.

---

I don't know if the differences he is talking about are meaningful or particular to where the microphones were placed. Does doppler play into it based on the placement of the microphones and the bullet moving toward or away? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he said the other gunman was supposedly located. Have a hard time believing the SS sniper team, if not the shooter than the spotter, in that overwatch position would not notice another weapon report. Those guys live weapons and shots, I would believe they would have the most discerning ears on the field that day.

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Or he visited an art museum like a whole host of people do every day.

---

Maybe, but this isn't his phone. This is tracking locations to his house and elsewhere by others.

---

Yes. Someone who visited him often visited something over in that area. The Smithsonian Art Museum is right there along with a literal ass load of other buildings.

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Or he visited an art museum like a whole host of people do every day.

---

Maybe, but this isn't his phone. This is tracking locations to his house and elsewhere by others.

---

Yes. Someone who visited him often visited something over in that area. The Smithsonian Art Museum is right there along with a literal ass load of other buildings.

---

If you're investigating this, do you ignore this evidence and chalk it up to visiting museums or do you figure out who was visiting him and for what reasons?

I'm just saying its suspicious, not saying it was the FBI. It could be irrelevant.

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Or he visited an art museum like a whole host of people do every day.

---

Maybe, but this isn't his phone. This is tracking locations to his house and elsewhere by others.

---

Yes. Someone who visited him often visited something over in that area. The Smithsonian Art Museum is right there along with a literal ass load of other buildings.

---

If you're investigating this, do you ignore this evidence and chalk it up to visiting museums or do you figure out who was visiting him and for what reasons?

---

I spend about 2 mins investigating who visited him. I don't assume that because someone he knew also happened to go to DC there's some nefarious link. It's a 250 mile trip that school kids make literally hundreds of times a year. I bet loads of his classmates ALSO went to buildings in DC.

Instead of starting with the conspiracy and working backwards to prove it I'll start with the premise that there is no conspiracy.

Tunnel vision investigation where people latch on to certain premises often lead to wrongful convictions.

Its possible it's some grand conspiracy and I'll entertain that when you entertain it's also equally as plausible that someone was in DC simply because there are approximately a million reasons to be in DC that have literally nothing to do with a conspiracy to kill a former president.

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Or he visited an art museum like a whole host of people do every day.

---

Maybe, but this isn't his phone. This is tracking locations to his house and elsewhere by others.

---

Yes. Someone who visited him often visited something over in that area. The Smithsonian Art Museum is right there along with a literal ass load of other buildings.

---

If you're investigating this, do you ignore this evidence and chalk it up to visiting museums or do you figure out who was visiting him and for what reasons?

---

Its possible it's some grand conspiracy and I'll entertain that when you entertain it's also equally as plausible that someone was in DC simply because there are approximately a million reasons to be in DC that have literally nothing to do with a conspiracy to kill a former president.

---

Did you miss the part where I said "I'm just saying its suspicious, not saying it was the FBI. It could be irrelevant"?

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Or he visited an art museum like a whole host of people do every day.

---

Maybe, but this isn't his phone. This is tracking locations to his house and elsewhere by others.

---

Yes. Someone who visited him often visited something over in that area. The Smithsonian Art Museum is right there along with a literal ass load of other buildings.

---

If you're investigating this, do you ignore this evidence and chalk it up to visiting museums or do you figure out who was visiting him and for what reasons?

---

Its possible it's some grand conspiracy and I'll entertain that when you entertain it's also equally as plausible that someone was in DC simply because there are approximately a million reasons to be in DC that have literally nothing to do with a conspiracy to kill a former president.

---

Did you miss the part where I said "I'm just saying its suspicious, not saying it was the FBI. It could be irrelevant"?

---

Since you edited it after I posted…yes

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Or he visited an art museum like a whole host of people do every day.

---

Maybe, but this isn't his phone. This is tracking locations to his house and elsewhere by others.

---

Yes. Someone who visited him often visited something over in that area. The Smithsonian Art Museum is right there along with a literal ass load of other buildings.

---

If you're investigating this, do you ignore this evidence and chalk it up to visiting museums or do you figure out who was visiting him and for what reasons?

---

Its possible it's some grand conspiracy and I'll entertain that when you entertain it's also equally as plausible that someone was in DC simply because there are approximately a million reasons to be in DC that have literally nothing to do with a conspiracy to kill a former president.

---

Did you miss the part where I said "I'm just saying its suspicious, not saying it was the FBI. It could be irrelevant"?

---

Since you edited it after I posted…yes

---

I added that before you posted. You probably didn't refresh your browser.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

---

Thank you. This is a much better reply than your others.

I agree and want to see some experts (not a part of the government) independently go over his findings.

I agree on your guess on the 1st the being calm and the 2nd set of 5 being chaotic...but that doesnt explain the sound differences OR more importantly, the distance differences.

For those that havent watch the 2nd sound video, there is an exact lapse of time for the 1st 3 shots (i think 0.022) between the shockwace of the bullet going by an on stage microphone and the sound of the shot from the gun. (The bullet travels faster than the sound of the gun firing.)
The 2nd set of 5 shots are all 0.021 apart - which is a lot of distance when a bullet is traveling that fast. The 2nd set of shots are all uniform at 0.021, meaning the 2 sets of shots not only sound massively different, they are from very different distances.

A 2nd gunman. A pro that got unlucky because Trump turned his head at the exact right millisecond. Thank God.

---

I don't know if the differences he is talking about are meaningful or particular to where the microphones were placed. Does doppler play into it based on the placement of the microphones and the bullet moving toward or away? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he said the other gunman was supposedly located. Have a hard time believing the SS sniper team, if not the shooter than the spotter, in that overwatch position would not notice another weapon report. Those guys live weapons and shots, I would believe they would have the most discerning ears on the field that day.

---

I think you are starting to get to the point. Someone or more of the ss may have been in on it. Waaaay to many blown moves to think they were doing something other than throwing.

And, if the other shooter was inside that open window 2nd story room, well inside the room - it would be hard for anyone to spot him.

Im not saying there was one in there. And the sound guy doesnt say where the 2nd guy was... he just says it is from a measurable distance from the patsy.

Also - after the ss director (didnt) testified before congressional committee this morning, many congressman walked out saying they now believe there was a 2nd shooter. I was shocked when i heard Fox News say that.

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Or he visited an art museum like a whole host of people do every day.

---

Maybe, but this isn't his phone. This is tracking locations to his house and elsewhere by others.

---

Yes. Someone who visited him often visited something over in that area. The Smithsonian Art Museum is right there along with a literal ass load of other buildings.

---

If you're investigating this, do you ignore this evidence and chalk it up to visiting museums or do you figure out who was visiting him and for what reasons?

---

I spend about 2 mins investigating who visited him. I don't assume that because someone he knew also happened to go to DC there's some nefarious link. It's a 250 mile trip that school kids make literally hundreds of times a year. I bet loads of his classmates ALSO went to buildings in DC.

Instead of starting with the conspiracy and working backwards to prove it I'll start with the premise that there is no conspiracy.

Tunnel vision investigation where people latch on to certain premises often lead to wrongful convictions.

---

You don't start with ANY premise, you go where the evidence takes you. And sorry, but it is mind numbingly dumb to only spend "2 minutes" investigating those who visited the person who planned an assassination. So motive, influence, aid, etc. aren't important to you? Especially since there was an active, credible threat of assassination of Trump from Iran, for God's sake. Starting with the premise that there is NO conspiracy has led you to be dismissive about Crooks' contacts and visitations, and that is exactly the kind of tunnel vision that you're describing.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Uh guys…we have a major red flag here.

Someone who regularly visited Crooks home and work also visited a building in Washington, DC located in Gallery Place.
This is in the same vicinity of an FBI office on June 26, 2023.

Someone who regularly visited Crooks home and work also visited a building in Washington, DC located in Gallery Place.

This is in the same vicinity of an @FBI office on June 26, 2023.

Who’s device is this? pic.twitter.com/b9ZIO5utDC

— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) July 22, 2024

---

And you know what that means!!!

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

---

Thank you. This is a much better reply than your others.

I agree and want to see some experts (not a part of the government) independently go over his findings.

I agree on your guess on the 1st the being calm and the 2nd set of 5 being chaotic...but that doesnt explain the sound differences OR more importantly, the distance differences.

For those that havent watch the 2nd sound video, there is an exact lapse of time for the 1st 3 shots (i think 0.022) between the shockwace of the bullet going by an on stage microphone and the sound of the shot from the gun. (The bullet travels faster than the sound of the gun firing.)
The 2nd set of 5 shots are all 0.021 apart - which is a lot of distance when a bullet is traveling that fast. The 2nd set of shots are all uniform at 0.021, meaning the 2 sets of shots not only sound massively different, they are from very different distances.

A 2nd gunman. A pro that got unlucky because Trump turned his head at the exact right millisecond. Thank God.

---

I don't know if the differences he is talking about are meaningful or particular to where the microphones were placed. Does doppler play into it based on the placement of the microphones and the bullet moving toward or away? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he said the other gunman was supposedly located. Have a hard time believing the SS sniper team, if not the shooter than the spotter, in that overwatch position would not notice another weapon report. Those guys live weapons and shots, I would believe they would have the most discerning ears on the field that day.

---

I think you are starting to get to the point. Someone or more of the ss may have been in on it. Waaaay to many blown moves to think they were doing something other than throwing.

And, if the other shooter was inside that open window 2nd story room, well inside the room - it would be hard for anyone to spot him.

Im not saying there was one in there. And the sound guy doesnt say where the 2nd guy was... he just says it is from a measurable distance from the patsy.

Also - after the ss director (didnt) testified before congressional committee this morning, many congressman walked out saying they now believe there was a 2nd shooter. I was shocked when i heard Fox News say that.

---

Yet we keep coming back to the results. So, now it isn't just a missed 8 shots from 165 yards. Now it is a pro with nobody knowing he is there also missed or grazed his ear. They killed and injured civilians.

So the SS was in on it, the pro got 1 shot off from a concealed position with no threat of capture and got off one shot that nicked him.

If we are following evidence, you seem to be overlooking that.

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Uh guys…we have a major red flag here.

Someone who regularly visited Crooks home and work also visited a building in Washington, DC located in Gallery Place.
This is in the same vicinity of an FBI office on June 26, 2023.

Someone who regularly visited Crooks home and work also visited a building in Washington, DC located in Gallery Place.

This is in the same vicinity of an @FBI office on June 26, 2023.

Who’s device is this? pic.twitter.com/b9ZIO5utDC

— Oversight Project (@OversightPR) July 22, 2024

---

And you know what that means!!!

---

All I know is I have more questions than answers and not just about this assassination attempt.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

---

Thank you. This is a much better reply than your others.

I agree and want to see some experts (not a part of the government) independently go over his findings.

I agree on your guess on the 1st the being calm and the 2nd set of 5 being chaotic...but that doesnt explain the sound differences OR more importantly, the distance differences.

For those that havent watch the 2nd sound video, there is an exact lapse of time for the 1st 3 shots (i think 0.022) between the shockwace of the bullet going by an on stage microphone and the sound of the shot from the gun. (The bullet travels faster than the sound of the gun firing.)
The 2nd set of 5 shots are all 0.021 apart - which is a lot of distance when a bullet is traveling that fast. The 2nd set of shots are all uniform at 0.021, meaning the 2 sets of shots not only sound massively different, they are from very different distances.

A 2nd gunman. A pro that got unlucky because Trump turned his head at the exact right millisecond. Thank God.

---

I don't know if the differences he is talking about are meaningful or particular to where the microphones were placed. Does doppler play into it based on the placement of the microphones and the bullet moving toward or away? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he said the other gunman was supposedly located. Have a hard time believing the SS sniper team, if not the shooter than the spotter, in that overwatch position would not notice another weapon report. Those guys live weapons and shots, I would believe they would have the most discerning ears on the field that day.

---

I think you are starting to get to the point. Someone or more of the ss may have been in on it. Waaaay to many blown moves to think they were doing something other than throwing.

And, if the other shooter was inside that open window 2nd story room, well inside the room - it would be hard for anyone to spot him.

Im not saying there was one in there. And the sound guy doesnt say where the 2nd guy was... he just says it is from a measurable distance from the patsy.

Also - after the ss director (didnt) testified before congressional committee this morning, many congressman walked out saying they now believe there was a 2nd shooter. I was shocked when i heard Fox News say that.

---

Yet we keep coming back to the results. So, now it isn't just a missed 8 shots from 165 yards. Now it is a pro with nobody knowing he is there also missed or grazed his ear. They killed and injured civilians.

So the SS was in on it, the pro got 1 shot off from a concealed position with no threat of capture and got off one shot that nicked him.

If we are following evidence, you seem to be overlooking that.

---

Im saying i dont know where who or how...only that the audio evidence suggests there is a 2nd shooter.

The rest of what I'm saying are just my guesses... well not my guesses but I am repeating other's theories.

And I personally believe the 9th shot, right after the shots 4-8 is a good guy sniper and that may have stopped the patsy from shooting. And that the 10th shot 10 or so seconds after shot 9 was the ss sniper that killed the patsy.

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

---

Thank you. This is a much better reply than your others.

I agree and want to see some experts (not a part of the government) independently go over his findings.

I agree on your guess on the 1st the being calm and the 2nd set of 5 being chaotic...but that doesnt explain the sound differences OR more importantly, the distance differences.

For those that havent watch the 2nd sound video, there is an exact lapse of time for the 1st 3 shots (i think 0.022) between the shockwace of the bullet going by an on stage microphone and the sound of the shot from the gun. (The bullet travels faster than the sound of the gun firing.)
The 2nd set of 5 shots are all 0.021 apart - which is a lot of distance when a bullet is traveling that fast. The 2nd set of shots are all uniform at 0.021, meaning the 2 sets of shots not only sound massively different, they are from very different distances.

A 2nd gunman. A pro that got unlucky because Trump turned his head at the exact right millisecond. Thank God.

---

Two audio experts Rob Maher of Montana State University and Steven Beck of Beck Audio Forensics counted a total of 10 gunshots after analyzing verified footage of the assassination attempt and law enforcement response that followed. The first eight had similar audio characteristics and were fired in six seconds. They were followed immediately by a shot from a different location, they said, and, 16 seconds after the shooting began, by a final shot. These last two gunshots had different acoustic signatures from the previous ones, suggesting a security response. Both Maher and Beck cautioned that audio analysis alone could not determine the exact source of these gunshots.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/trump-rally-shooting-maps-secret-service-analysis/

---

I'd like to see their report. Your link is behind a paywall.

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

---

Thank you. This is a much better reply than your others.

I agree and want to see some experts (not a part of the government) independently go over his findings.

I agree on your guess on the 1st the being calm and the 2nd set of 5 being chaotic...but that doesnt explain the sound differences OR more importantly, the distance differences.

For those that havent watch the 2nd sound video, there is an exact lapse of time for the 1st 3 shots (i think 0.022) between the shockwace of the bullet going by an on stage microphone and the sound of the shot from the gun. (The bullet travels faster than the sound of the gun firing.)
The 2nd set of 5 shots are all 0.021 apart - which is a lot of distance when a bullet is traveling that fast. The 2nd set of shots are all uniform at 0.021, meaning the 2 sets of shots not only sound massively different, they are from very different distances.

A 2nd gunman. A pro that got unlucky because Trump turned his head at the exact right millisecond. Thank God.

---

I don't know if the differences he is talking about are meaningful or particular to where the microphones were placed. Does doppler play into it based on the placement of the microphones and the bullet moving toward or away? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where he said the other gunman was supposedly located. Have a hard time believing the SS sniper team, if not the shooter than the spotter, in that overwatch position would not notice another weapon report. Those guys live weapons and shots, I would believe they would have the most discerning ears on the field that day.

---

I think you are starting to get to the point. Someone or more of the ss may have been in on it. Waaaay to many blown moves to think they were doing something other than throwing.

And, if the other shooter was inside that open window 2nd story room, well inside the room - it would be hard for anyone to spot him.

Im not saying there was one in there. And the sound guy doesnt say where the 2nd guy was... he just says it is from a measurable distance from the patsy.

Also - after the ss director (didnt) testified before congressional committee this morning, many congressman walked out saying they now believe there was a 2nd shooter. I was shocked when i heard Fox News say that.

---

Yet we keep coming back to the results. So, now it isn't just a missed 8 shots from 165 yards. Now it is a pro with nobody knowing he is there also missed or grazed his ear. They killed and injured civilians.

So the SS was in on it, the pro got 1 shot off from a concealed position with no threat of capture and got off one shot that nicked him.

If we are following evidence, you seem to be overlooking that.

---

Im saying i dont know where who or how...only that the audio evidence suggests there is a 2nd shooter.

The rest of what I'm saying are just my guesses... well not my guesses but I am repeating other's theories.

And I personally believe the 9th shot, right after the shots 4-8 is a good guy sniper and that may have stopped the patsy from shooting. And that the 10th shot 10 or so seconds after shot 9 was the ss sniper that killed the patsy.

---

Just discussing. For me, I see the paths, than get to the execution that was horribly amateur. Then come to conclusion that no pro, at the level of a Presidential hit, would end up with that cluster. Leads me to kid looking to make name. But I know nothing of the actual facts.

Married A Horn said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One pro, one patsy...and listen to the audio, it is clear that the shots are coming from two different places and two different trigger fingers.

---

You guys really believe a pro was involved with this mess? That 8 shots would be fired from 165ish and the outcome would be one grazed ear, 1 dead civilian and sporadic injuries? Unless you are saying you think the planned outcome wasn't an assassination but something else.

I do not believe Trump planned to have his ear shot as some other conspiracies say, that is insane, the margins too small and risk of collateral too high. So, what was the end game? If the SS sniper didn't call the sniper, the ballistics will show that and it would be close to impossible to bury. So, what was the extra shot fired at?

---

I currently THINK (only think- would like proof) that the 1st 3 muffled shots are by a pro and trump turning his head saved him from that pro. Then the patsy got excited and shot off 5 rapid fire wild shots cause he was excited.

---

The first thing I would need to ask someone that really knows is his methodology sound? Playing tape 1 and 2 from different locations really tell us anything? Could the inconsistencies be explained? It seems a good bar discussion, but does it mean anything?

Second, It sounds to me like the first three were at Trump with purpose, meaning aimed and went through his breathing correctly. The next three sounded like he started snapping off shots, maybe after the Police showed up and rushed him. I do not know enough about ballistic acoustics to really say, but my gut tells me the report was more about shot frequency than distance. He was controlled (shots 1,2,3), got harassed and started spraying (4,5,6).

I would love to see someone dissect the site and put together the evidence. I really don't know if that meant anything or was just curious?

---

Thank you. This is a much better reply than your others.

I agree and want to see some experts (not a part of the government) independently go over his findings.

I agree on your guess on the 1st the being calm and the 2nd set of 5 being chaotic...but that doesnt explain the sound differences OR more importantly, the distance differences.

For those that havent watch the 2nd sound video, there is an exact lapse of time for the 1st 3 shots (i think 0.022) between the shockwace of the bullet going by an on stage microphone and the sound of the shot from the gun. (The bullet travels faster than the sound of the gun firing.)
The 2nd set of 5 shots are all 0.021 apart - which is a lot of distance when a bullet is traveling that fast. The 2nd set of shots are all uniform at 0.021, meaning the 2 sets of shots not only sound massively different, they are from very different distances.

A 2nd gunman. A pro that got unlucky because Trump turned his head at the exact right millisecond. Thank God.

---

Two audio experts Rob Maher of Montana State University and Steven Beck of Beck Audio Forensics counted a total of 10 gunshots after analyzing verified footage of the assassination attempt and law enforcement response that followed. The first eight had similar audio characteristics and were fired in six seconds. They were followed immediately by a shot from a different location, they said, and, 16 seconds after the shooting began, by a final shot. These last two gunshots had different acoustic signatures from the previous ones, suggesting a security response. Both Maher and Beck cautioned that audio analysis alone could not determine the exact source of these gunshots.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/trump-rally-shooting-maps-secret-service-analysis/

---

I'd like to see their report. Your link is behind a paywall.

---

This isn't their report, just an article about their report

However these are independent professionals

I really want to see a second report on the audio from the spectators cell phone.

Married A Horn said:

---

I really want to see a second report on the audio from the spectators cell phone.

---

Will you post your evidence supporting the 2nd shooter?

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I really want to see a second report on the audio from the spectators cell phone.

---

Will you post your evidence supporting the 2nd shooter?

---

What was the purpose of the attempt with 2 shooters and only a nick on the supposed target with 8 shots, one of the shooters a pro concealed (we still don't know where they were located)? Sorry, can't get around what was the mission? A pro changes the dynamic, pros don't miss.
Was it just the attempt, that was good enough? Was make an attempt, take out patsy? But they know who shot the original shooter, they have the ballistics. Two shooters change whole picture and results make less sense.

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

I really want to see a second report on the audio from the spectators cell phone.

---

Will you post your evidence supporting the 2nd shooter?

---

What was the purpose of the attempt with 2 shooters and only a nick on the supposed target with 8 shots, one of the shooters a pro concealed (we still don't know where they were located)? Sorry, can't get around what was the mission? A pro changes the dynamic, pros don't miss.
Was it just the attempt, that was good enough? Was make an attempt, take out patsy? But they know who shot the original shooter, they have the ballistics. Two shooters change whole picture and results make less sense.

---

Occam's razor. It was an amateur who got off 8 shots and SS sniper with 2.
All evidence points in that direction.

---

That is what I am seeing.

The only patsy I can see is the SS Director who is covering up the incompetency of the Team that had security. I would not be surprised if it turns out that the SS Agents on site complained about resources or the professionalism of the HSA Agents and she vouched for them. Her testimony yesterday is the most disturbing thing in this mess. She got AOC, MTG and Mace on the same side! I do not believe there was a "plot", but there was negligence. The fact Mayorkas has not fired her is ridiculous. This Cabinet is bad, just plain incompetent...