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:
So... three options I can think of.
Cabal infiltrated security and wanted Trump to be killed.
It was staged as part of the movie, and no one was actually hurt (like the Ashli Babbit thing).
There was an actual mistake or confusion and that building was left unattended.
Personally, I give #3 a -89% (yes, that is a minus).
The fact that the shooter's last name is Violet and Trump misspelled violence as violent the other day (yesterday?) leads me to hope that it was #2... otherwise, if the Cabal is able to infiltrate the current Secret Service detail around Trump, then the game has changed.
IMO, the best way to look at whether or not an event was organic, and/or who was in charge of an event is to look at the actual outcome of the event, i.e., who actually benefits.
In this case, there was an attempted "assassination" on Trump, where the shooter hit, but in the most visible, yet least harmful way possible.
Most visible, least harmful.
I mean, this "gunshot wound" won't even slow him down from shaving, yet the streak of blood that everyone in the world will see makes it very dramatic and "real".
Trump is now the "victim" of a violent attack. That is a position of incredible power politically. There was also all sorts of other suspicious stuff going on (no SS on the roof, etc.), and yet even people here are insisting their belief that "this wasn't staged." How will normies see it if there are even people here who don't get it?
I see only two possibilities here:
I suggest we will have to wait and see what actually happens in the coming days and weeks (who gets blamed, hidden evidence, who gets woken up by this, etc.) to determine the most likely scenario. But whatever happens, thinking that it is playing out organically is utterly foolish. All the world's a stage. Everything that makes it to "headline news" is wagging the dog to one extent or another. People must learn how unbelievably true that is before any real awakening can occur.
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 is not an example of the principle of parsimony that underlies Occam's razor.
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.
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.