It just keeps getting weirder
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (220)
sorted by:
Or, you could go with Occam's Razor and say that the assassin was just a terrible shot.
Outcomes do not necessarily equate to intent.
EDIT -- just to be clear, I subscribe to the idea that it was a DeepState op but the guy just missed. The inexplicable lack of SS coverage on that rooftop is a giveaway.
First, Occam's Razor is almost never accurate in any complicated system. Things turn out to be always more complicated than the first accepted, "least complex" proposal (in the realm of science, where it is intended to be applied). Occam's Razor is a decision making concept (which path do I take on this decision tree?). It has nothing to do with the actual truth of anything.
Regardless, him being a "terrible shot" would not be according to Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor requires taking all of the evidence into account. The evidence that presents itself suggests that he was hit, but barely hit. That is just shy of impossible unless it is either intended or completely faked. I'm not saying "it's impossible," I'm speaking statistically. There is the whole of the area that isn't Trump (all the world but Trump), and there is all of Trump. Hitting him precisely on the boundary between those two spaces (on just the very surface of his skin) in a place that would seem extremely life threatening, but would turn out to actually be almost completely harmless, and yet also be where the camera would pick it up perfectly without trying (the side of his face that would face the camera as he was led away) is the hardest shot in the world.
Statistically speaking, it is the least likely outcome by about a hundred orders of magnitude. Thus if we were to apply Occam's Razor as you suggest, the most likely outcome is that something else happened than that the shooter was a "bad shot" as you suggest.
I heard he turned his head or would have been hit.
This detail would be unbelievably hard to script and perform. I’m willing to believe there was some amount of divine intervention here, this is exactly the sort of thing you hear people talking about in “guardian angel” stories.
This is not an example of the principle of parsimony that underlies Occam's razor.
The principle of parsimony states that the solution set with the fewest assumptions is the most likely best solution.
The hypothesis is that the shot that resulted was an accident.
The alternative hypothesis would be that the apparent result was not an accident.
Let's look at the first hypothesis. I am looking at this from a statistical mechanics perspective. Let's assume that the shooter was aiming for the center of Trump's head. The actual shot (assuming there was any bullet at all) appears to have had a minimal impact on Trump. I think it's safe to assume that a greater than 2mm deep impact would not have been so minimal. It also hit him in a spot that had maximal dramatic impact. If it had grazed his cheek for example, it wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much blood. It probably would have self-cauterized. That pretty much leaves the left ear (the one that would face the camera) as the only place for minimal impact but maximal drama. But again, it can only graze the ear. Any more and we would see his ear dangling, or blown off, etc. But it also has to get enough of a chunk to cause all the blood and not self-cauterize.
So how many 2mm squares (4 sq mm) are there that would have maximal drama, but minimal health impact? Maybe 20? 50? We'll call it 50 for simplicity. Now, assuming he was aiming for the center of Trump's head but missed, how many squares are there total between the center of his head, and twice the distance to the border of his head where the bullet (if it existed) appears to have hit? That total area has an about equal chance of being hit assuming a miss from center, so all are weighted equally. A bit of quick napkin math gives me about 50,000 possible 2mm boxes he could have hit, each with the same probability. If we were to expand that out to include his body, or the larger air around him there would be a great many more place he could have hit, but they would have a lesser probability, so I will not include them for simplicity.
In order for it to be an accident, we have to assume that he just so happened to hit one of the 50 choices for minimal health, maximal drama impact instead of one of the other 49,950 others. Each of those choices (akin to a microstate) is an individual assumption, because each is individually equally likely.
For the alternative hypothesis we really just need one assumption in this regard. That assumption is that the outcome was what was intended.
Thus, choosing the set with the fewest assumptions demands we choose the alternative hypothesis.
If we then consider Q this becomes more dramatic.
For example, Q stated:
#q/326
#q/35
#q/813
83 different q posts
#q/3387
In order for this to have been an accident, we must believe Q lied or is otherwise completely incompetent. There are thousands of reasons to not believe that, so that requires a new assumption for each piece of contraindicating evidence.
For the alternative hypothesis on the other hand, we only need one assumption. Q was telling the truth.
Here's an example of parsimony.
The shot was deliberate but barely missed it's target resulting in minimal damage.
Your example is over 300 words and says a shot involving the cheek wouldn't involve much blood and would be less dramatic. Which not only increase the complexity of the situation but involve assumptions on your part.
Your example also claims Trump was shot in the ear facing the camera. And of course Trump could move his head and that ear was facing away when it was hit. It was his right ear by the way. It was camera left but his right.
Another way your example reduces parsimony, is you claim that tiny 2 mm area was the target. This would require expert precision in the shot.
I find this assumption to be completely wrong.
I assume the tire the shooter intended to kill Trump and missed. You reduce parsimony again and increase complexity by assuming a deliberate specificity to how he missed.
In short, I think your statistical mechanical approach es leads you astray.
It was done in a very high profile public way, the same way JFK and RFK were both assassinated. That right there says CIA/Deep State. Compare it to Reagan’s failed assassination attempt.
This is what we are supposed to believe. We receive constant training to make us believe that; from the media, from school, etc. I suggest that this is false more often than not on anything that makes it into the broad media. At least that is what my (very deep dive) investigation suggests.
All the world really is a stage. Getting people to see that is hard, because the evidence is hidden deep. If you don't believe me, but want to be sure I'm wrong, read my report. It might change your mind (like it has thousands of other people).
"Or, you could go with Occam's Razor and say that the assassin was just a terrible shot."
RSBN was reporting that the killer was 150 yards away. Yeah, I know -- there are military sharpshooters for whom that would be no probem. But for just about anyone else, 150 yards is a long way off.
Point is, even a military-level sniper is likely to have problems with a moving target at 150 yards. More than one bystander would likely be hit.
First, he was NOT a "moving target." On the contrary he was as stationary as a deer drinking water. In the hunting world, that's basically the deer jumping into your freezer.
Second, standard practice distance for hunting is 100 yards (at least where I grew up). That's the range were we calibrate our sights, because you know if you miss the bullseye at that range, your sights are off. Common long range practice is 200 yards. Hitting 150 yards may seem like a lot for anyone who doesn't shoot, but for anyone who spends time at the range on a semi-regular basis (or grew up hunting), they will have ZERO issues hitting a standing target at 150 yards. Hell, it wouldn't even be hard to hit someone in the eye at that range, much less "anywhere in the head area".
The hardest shot would be scratching the ear.
Now if you put your target out to 500 yards, then it starts getting a little bit "military-level sniper" range. Under 200, and your just talking anyone who grew up in Texas.
No isn't...150 yards is nothing on iron sights using an 81 year old Garand that's been bashed to hell...
Sharpshooters are typically deployed in pairs. One acts as the spotter, who does the calculations, and one is the triggerman, who is responsible for adjusting the rifle and taking the shot. Trained marksmen also do not usually aim for the head if the center of mass is exposed.
For anyone who doesn't realize how far 150 yards is and how difficult a shot is at a distance, a target that would be 6ft tall at 1 yard shrinks to just under half an inch (31/64ths) in size to the naked eye at 150 yards, and that's the size of the target from head to toe, not just the head.
The human head, meanwhile, is about 9 inches from chin to crown for someone 6ft tall, which reduces to less than 0.05 inches at 150 yards, assuming you have no magnification. An untrained shooter would probably need at least 10x magnification to make the shot, and that's assuming they account for wind and have their scope properly zero'd in for that distance.
EDIT: To make one thing clear, I think we are all collectively very lucky that the shooter did not account for wind direction and speed, because that is the most likely reason that Trump wasn't killed.
I just heard the shooter was a flat earther and didn’t take the earths curvature into consideration. That’s why he missed 😬
There are plenty of teenagers out there that could hit a target at 150 yards with a high powered rifle and a scope. I haven't shot that far in many months and am pretty confident I could hit a man-sized target under the right conditions.
The fact that this kid was from Bethel Park though...not an area known for breeding hunters. I have questions. Also "what was the caliber" and "did he have a scope" and "was there wind"? Many variables in play here.
Ultimately its why I think the hypothesis that he was aiming for a "near-kill but not an actual kill" is hilariously bad.