images of the F🐝👁 pressure washing the roof (you know, a fucking crime scene or whatevs) just one day later
Senator Hawley statements today that the scene looks like a warzone and the glowies literally threw him out when he showed up to check it out today
Black SUVs, white vans full of ordinance, shooter flying drones but NOT the USSS, eyewitness testimony of sheer madness long before the incident, zip lines, water towers, foreign encrypted accounts, and... well shit, YOU NAME IT....
I am feeling a very deep, dark rabbit hole has been exposed here and they are scrambling to pull it all back behind the curtain... the time crunch seems to be the constraint they struggle with the worst, because of the sheer speed of internet sleuthing, conspiracy debunking etc due to tech and "the 'Net" in modern day....
I am wondering if some sort of karma justice is playing out, and depending on where this leads us, if it will soothe some troubled ghosts[JFK, RFK and their other "victims"] .... and theb connections with Jr, Trump, Q and more....
Certainly we can already say that [DS] "troubled past" is now coming back to haunt them, they are already having a bitch of a time trying to lead ANYONE, even the most casual of normies, anywhere off the mark so as to satisfy the public's curiosity (because the reputation and the mistrust is just TOO DEEP when it comes to this type of event in particular)
The concern about preserving a crime scene is until the crime scene is processed for evidence. Once you have the evidence, the crime scene is released.
There's no issue with washing a released crime scene. There's businesses that specialize in cleaning up crime scenes.
I know a little about that type business, my uncle used to do that w crime scenes and I think house fires also. I recall hearing that it was lucrative.
Anyway I am not saying they shouldn't clean up once released, I just found it surprising they were done processing so quickly after, like the next morning almost
Perhaps because it was such a bare crime scene to begin with??
Like before he got there it was bare roof,
It wasn't like you'd have a lot of history of people going to that spot. Where you'd have to figure out what was from the day of the crime and what just existed there before like the a timeline type of thing. They would have witness statements saying exactly when he climbed on the roof.
Not a lot of carpet to take fibers from. Not a lot of fingerprints that would be relevant. I guess maybe his fingerprints would be relevant.
My guess is the the entirety of evidence is his body and what he brought on the roof, his gun etc. Not a lot of clutter to go through.
So the attempted assassination of the Presidential frontrunner, in which all evidence is pointing to a larger conspiracy run by his opponents in the government, only requires a day or so to process? Lunacy. Are you part of the clean up crew? Sent to assure the sheep that everything here is normal?
Its funny that all these handshakes have suddenly appeared as the voice of reason and normalcy.
So the attempted assassination of the Presidential frontrunner, in which all evidence is pointing to a larger conspiracy run by his opponents in the government, only requires a day or so to process? Lunacy.
Not lunacy, Logic.
The impact of the crime has nothing to do with how long the crime scene takes to evaluate.
The crime scene is either complex or it's not.
What did I miss? Why would this scene take more than 3 hours to process once all the right people are there?
As for me? I'm just a guy on his phone trying not to jump to conclusions.
I know saw someone drop a link to this in comments elsewhere on here earlier but I didn't manage to watch it myself, but now that I have I felt it was way way too important not to share....
I belive the real shooter was in the building behind the patsy,you can see the window was open and the first shots have a different echo. Also the direction lines up better for just missing Trump.
This is the best video I've seen yet on the shooting,
The position you describe seems to be the consensus about where these second shots were likely to have come from.
Just to add to discussion though, there were witnesses in the crowd who said they saw shots coming from the water tower.
I only heard this once, so don't take it for gospel, but somewhere I heard it said that the Secret Service estimated the shots had come from around 480 yards (yes, YARDS, not feet)
This was a couple days ago and I never heard it again, I am also wondering did anyone else hear something like this? Apologies for not being able to directly reference it, at this point I have watched a ton of podcasts etc on the subject.
Funny enough, there is an interview with Tim Kennedy (Chris Williamson channel YT I think?) where he mentions he has seen information disappearing online.... Kennedy is a former sniper and UFC star (new to me)
They could easily debunk this if it wasn't true by releasing info on the shooters gun ie how much empty brass next to it/how many shots remaining in the magazine.
But since they've been completely quiet on those details it's becoming pretty obvious they're playing cover-up
He keeps talking about an AP story acting like they said. Crooks got off one shot and he says unless I have this story wrong..
I think he has the story wrong. This is their story on the shooting at the Trump rally. It's pretty clear they talk about multiple shots. Is he talking about a tweet or something?
I'm not sure but I think you are replying to u/Pbman2 and the YouTube link he posted, I haven't seen that content. So apologies in advance if I'm being unhelpful here.
You referenced an AP News article that someone was drawing from (and not getting it right it sounds like you're saying?)
So I just added the CNN link and I wanted to also put you and everyone else onto this article, which is pretty in depth and germane to our discussion:
There is actually another link to the CNN article there in his first sentence. The author doesn't give any revelations here but he does cover the entire situation in-depth, its a fairly long but comprehensive read.
Of note:
Only one shooter has been identified and the FBI says he acted alone. The bureau may want to reconsider its conclusion....Obviously this controversial audio forensic analysis needs peer review. But there are other questions beyond the audio forensics that need attention.
In fact, we don’t know if any of the bullets have been recovered. Fired and recovered shells, if found, could potentially be matched to the weapon or weapons...
Fairly bland but if you keep reading he does offer some worthwhile questions based upon the information we have heard so far.
Only trying to help or at least verify that this other audio study was done by researchers at University of Colorado.
One thing I've learned over the last handful of years is that whenever something happens and it is total chaos, the one thing you can do to start figuring things out is to listen to the initial reports in the MSM. One thing you can depend on is that, no matter what they are saying, you can be 100% certain that it is not the truth. In fact, it is usually the exact opposite of what they are telling you.
So the first three came from the building window directly below the shooter, angled gently upward to intersect Trump's ear and the last spectator on the right. Then immediately Crooks squeezed off four, and interspersed in those were two shots from a different distance than Crooks. The last one of those weapons sounds deeper and different (to me) from the others, meaning a third gun firing towards the podium. The final, last sound is the sniper taking out Crooks.
So three different weapons firing at Trump. Wow.
Wasn't there speculation at Dealey Plaza that there was a 2nd story window shooter below Ozwald's 4th floor window? In addition to crossfire from the grassy knoll.
I think he mentions in the video, Mike Adams was working on this immediately afterward and he is speculating that there were 3 different shooters + the counter sniper shot, but we can't be 100% certain of that number yet... but we CAN say with almost 100% confidence that there were AT LEAST two shooters...
I heard it just like you did, but I'm hesitant to commit to more than two as the number at least until we get feedback from a more advanced audio lab on all this... for example, could two of the seemingly different signatures have come from the same weapon if say, the shooter was moving or changed his position between shots. I don't know enough either.
It would make complete sense that they had several different baddies with their guns trained on the target to give themselves the best chance. As for a JFK 2nd floor window shooter i just never heard that one before I suppose.
But three shooters, wow, talk about having the armor of God on. It seems unreal that nothing managed to land if thats true.
The video part where he shows the ricochet was pretty powerful as evidence also. This is going to be tough for them to bury
I don't know about the first three shots, but I think the most undeniable evidence by far is when he lines up the two audio clips, and the shots don't match up perfectly. Either the shots came from two different locations or the bullets from the same weapon were somehow flying at different speeds. I don't know enough about bullets to rule that out.
He begins analyzing one audio wavelength and then like 17 minutes in he switches.
Wait, what!
That's audio recorded by a different system. He's not comparing apples and oranges anymore. WTH? We're not even sure these cameras record using the same video compression or audio sampling speed? That seems wrong.
It would be better if we knew they both the same model of phone.
Thank you. I suspected something like this would explain why the first batch of three shots sounds different.
However, I don't think this explains how any of the shots would fall out of sync as they seem to when the waveforms are lined up, unless the person recording was somehow able to move 50-100 feet in the span of a few seconds. The existing video does not seem to indicate that happening.
When he compares the different audios, you see TWO TIMELINES. He's not actually comparing two waveforms here. He is comparing two SCREENSHOTS of waveforms.
That may be so but as long as the scale is the same on both tracks/screenshots, it shouldn't matter whether it was screenshots or actually two tracks. I have used audacity for over a decade, I know how it works.
Just also want to add, between:
I am feeling a very deep, dark rabbit hole has been exposed here and they are scrambling to pull it all back behind the curtain... the time crunch seems to be the constraint they struggle with the worst, because of the sheer speed of internet sleuthing, conspiracy debunking etc due to tech and "the 'Net" in modern day....
I am wondering if some sort of karma justice is playing out, and depending on where this leads us, if it will soothe some troubled ghosts[JFK, RFK and their other "victims"] .... and theb connections with Jr, Trump, Q and more....
Certainly we can already say that [DS] "troubled past" is now coming back to haunt them, they are already having a bitch of a time trying to lead ANYONE, even the most casual of normies, anywhere off the mark so as to satisfy the public's curiosity (because the reputation and the mistrust is just TOO DEEP when it comes to this type of event in particular)
Hope that makes some sense... but sheesh,
What a time to be alive, man.
The concern about preserving a crime scene is until the crime scene is processed for evidence. Once you have the evidence, the crime scene is released.
There's no issue with washing a released crime scene. There's businesses that specialize in cleaning up crime scenes.
I know a little about that type business, my uncle used to do that w crime scenes and I think house fires also. I recall hearing that it was lucrative.
Anyway I am not saying they shouldn't clean up once released, I just found it surprising they were done processing so quickly after, like the next morning almost
Perhaps because it was such a bare crime scene to begin with??
Like before he got there it was bare roof,
It wasn't like you'd have a lot of history of people going to that spot. Where you'd have to figure out what was from the day of the crime and what just existed there before like the a timeline type of thing. They would have witness statements saying exactly when he climbed on the roof.
Not a lot of carpet to take fibers from. Not a lot of fingerprints that would be relevant. I guess maybe his fingerprints would be relevant.
My guess is the the entirety of evidence is his body and what he brought on the roof, his gun etc. Not a lot of clutter to go through.
So the attempted assassination of the Presidential frontrunner, in which all evidence is pointing to a larger conspiracy run by his opponents in the government, only requires a day or so to process? Lunacy. Are you part of the clean up crew? Sent to assure the sheep that everything here is normal?
Its funny that all these handshakes have suddenly appeared as the voice of reason and normalcy.
Not lunacy, Logic.
The impact of the crime has nothing to do with how long the crime scene takes to evaluate.
The crime scene is either complex or it's not.
What did I miss? Why would this scene take more than 3 hours to process once all the right people are there?
As for me? I'm just a guy on his phone trying not to jump to conclusions.
Mr Kaplan, Inc....
I know saw someone drop a link to this in comments elsewhere on here earlier but I didn't manage to watch it myself, but now that I have I felt it was way way too important not to share....
Hopefully I'm ahead and not behind on this one...
Link to a shorter version of the video, I can edit in CNN article link if anyone is interested also.
I belive the real shooter was in the building behind the patsy,you can see the window was open and the first shots have a different echo. Also the direction lines up better for just missing Trump.
This is the best video I've seen yet on the shooting,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6hTbo6IKSI
The position you describe seems to be the consensus about where these second shots were likely to have come from.
Just to add to discussion though, there were witnesses in the crowd who said they saw shots coming from the water tower.
I only heard this once, so don't take it for gospel, but somewhere I heard it said that the Secret Service estimated the shots had come from around 480 yards (yes, YARDS, not feet)
This was a couple days ago and I never heard it again, I am also wondering did anyone else hear something like this? Apologies for not being able to directly reference it, at this point I have watched a ton of podcasts etc on the subject.
Funny enough, there is an interview with Tim Kennedy (Chris Williamson channel YT I think?) where he mentions he has seen information disappearing online.... Kennedy is a former sniper and UFC star (new to me)
They could easily debunk this if it wasn't true by releasing info on the shooters gun ie how much empty brass next to it/how many shots remaining in the magazine.
But since they've been completely quiet on those details it's becoming pretty obvious they're playing cover-up
I think I read an article yesterday that there were two sets of snipers. SS and local. And both shot but SS got Crooks. That would be 3 shooters.
Definitely worth considering
He keeps talking about an AP story acting like they said. Crooks got off one shot and he says unless I have this story wrong..
I think he has the story wrong. This is their story on the shooting at the Trump rally. It's pretty clear they talk about multiple shots. Is he talking about a tweet or something?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5
Read it for yourself
A barrage of gunfire set off panic, and a bloodied Trump, who said he was shot in the ear
As the first pop rang out,
Witnesses heard multiple gunshots and ducked for cover
Reporters covering the rally heard five or six shots ring out and many ducked for cover
After the first two or three bangs,
I'm not sure but I think you are replying to u/Pbman2 and the YouTube link he posted, I haven't seen that content. So apologies in advance if I'm being unhelpful here.
You referenced an AP News article that someone was drawing from (and not getting it right it sounds like you're saying?)
So I just added the CNN link and I wanted to also put you and everyone else onto this article, which is pretty in depth and germane to our discussion:
https://asiatimes.com/2024/07/was-there-a-second-shooter-new-acoustic-evidence/
There is actually another link to the CNN article there in his first sentence. The author doesn't give any revelations here but he does cover the entire situation in-depth, its a fairly long but comprehensive read.
Of note:
Fairly bland but if you keep reading he does offer some worthwhile questions based upon the information we have heard so far.
Only trying to help or at least verify that this other audio study was done by researchers at University of Colorado.
Here is the CNN link also.
Hope this is helpful.
One thing I've learned over the last handful of years is that whenever something happens and it is total chaos, the one thing you can do to start figuring things out is to listen to the initial reports in the MSM. One thing you can depend on is that, no matter what they are saying, you can be 100% certain that it is not the truth. In fact, it is usually the exact opposite of what they are telling you.
So the first three came from the building window directly below the shooter, angled gently upward to intersect Trump's ear and the last spectator on the right. Then immediately Crooks squeezed off four, and interspersed in those were two shots from a different distance than Crooks. The last one of those weapons sounds deeper and different (to me) from the others, meaning a third gun firing towards the podium. The final, last sound is the sniper taking out Crooks.
So three different weapons firing at Trump. Wow.
Wasn't there speculation at Dealey Plaza that there was a 2nd story window shooter below Ozwald's 4th floor window? In addition to crossfire from the grassy knoll.
I think he mentions in the video, Mike Adams was working on this immediately afterward and he is speculating that there were 3 different shooters + the counter sniper shot, but we can't be 100% certain of that number yet... but we CAN say with almost 100% confidence that there were AT LEAST two shooters...
I heard it just like you did, but I'm hesitant to commit to more than two as the number at least until we get feedback from a more advanced audio lab on all this... for example, could two of the seemingly different signatures have come from the same weapon if say, the shooter was moving or changed his position between shots. I don't know enough either.
It would make complete sense that they had several different baddies with their guns trained on the target to give themselves the best chance. As for a JFK 2nd floor window shooter i just never heard that one before I suppose.
But three shooters, wow, talk about having the armor of God on. It seems unreal that nothing managed to land if thats true.
The video part where he shows the ricochet was pretty powerful as evidence also. This is going to be tough for them to bury
American citizens doing the forensics that the Feds won’t:
https://youtu.be/P6hTbo6IKSI?si=Nq-W4SF397sBBD4w
Cough, CIA/FBI, cough. I have no idea who did this operation!
I don't know about the first three shots, but I think the most undeniable evidence by far is when he lines up the two audio clips, and the shots don't match up perfectly. Either the shots came from two different locations or the bullets from the same weapon were somehow flying at different speeds. I don't know enough about bullets to rule that out.
He pulls a bait and switch.
He begins analyzing one audio wavelength and then like 17 minutes in he switches. Wait, what!
That's audio recorded by a different system. He's not comparing apples and oranges anymore. WTH? We're not even sure these cameras record using the same video compression or audio sampling speed? That seems wrong.
It would be better if we knew they both the same model of phone.
OMG. OK. The different phones is minor minor issue compared to this.
19 minutes in he claims he has evidence of two gunman. And his argument is the shots sound different
But look at the video. The reason shots sound different is right in the video.
The camera is not stationary which means the microphone is moving. And even more important what is in front of the microphone is moving.
The guy taking the video does a full 180 in the shot.
This changes the relationship of the microphone to the gun
So the video begins the alignment is
microphone then body then gun
Sound is coming from the back through his body to the mic.
However, for the later shots the guy holding the phone completely turns around And is now facing the shooter. So the alignment is
Body microphone gun
Sound is coming unimpeded directly into the microphone.
The first three shots have have his body between the microphone and the gun and the last shots don't. This changes the sound quality.
Again, this is not an Apple to oranges comparison.
Thank you. I suspected something like this would explain why the first batch of three shots sounds different.
However, I don't think this explains how any of the shots would fall out of sync as they seem to when the waveforms are lined up, unless the person recording was somehow able to move 50-100 feet in the span of a few seconds. The existing video does not seem to indicate that happening.
What time in the video?
Starts at about 24 minutes
He is usuing Audacity to compare waveforms.
But look at the Audacity menu and see how it handles multi track editing.
https://manual.audacityteam.org/man/tutorial_using_multi_track.html
You have one timeline and multiple audio tracks.
This is not what his video shows.
When he compares the different audios, you see TWO TIMELINES. He's not actually comparing two waveforms here. He is comparing two SCREENSHOTS of waveforms.
That may be so but as long as the scale is the same on both tracks/screenshots, it shouldn't matter whether it was screenshots or actually two tracks. I have used audacity for over a decade, I know how it works.