This guy was TROLLING.
In fact, Thomas Matthew Crooks made a video AFTER THE SHOOTING saying: "I'm Thomas Matthew Crooks, I hate Republicans, I hate Donald Trump". Then he leans forward and says: "You got the wrong guy".
He earlier put up a picture of HIMSELF and said, this guy is the shooter.
OK.
That could be an explanation that it's not the videographer's finger.
However, it's dead center on the body frame line.
Is he filming over her head and she's really short? Trying to figure out how they would have to be positioned for this to actually happen.
The other thing for me is the voices at the beginning do not match what's in the frame.
I don't have time to rabbit hole this tonight but I'm going to take another look
My speculation is the voices before what is happening were added later.
TMZ has the video
Am I wrong or is there no pointing finger here?
Big grain of salt.......but the voices at the beginning of this video and especially the pointed finger raise red flags for me.
Imagine you are talking to someone. Imagine you are pointing as you talkn to them
Now take out your phone and try to recreate what happens in this video. I couldn't do it. It looked nothing like this video
Let me try a different approach.
Let's try a hypothetical.
I think we're agreeing Occam's Razor is not the operational principle going on here.
Well, technically the Progressive Party.
Bull moose party was a nickname
The WHs knew the DS would try something like this on this day and made the preparations to counter it.
How?
What do you mean same reason.
Roosevelt was absolutely campaigning. And was not a Republican at the time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Theodore_Roosevelt
Reagan was shot in 1981. In 1982 we had a deep recession.
These are different situations.
There were two assassination attempts on Ford. He lost.
Teddy Roosevelt lost after getting shot. He got 27% of the vote in 1912.
Reagan got shot because some guy wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Squeaky Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford on behalf of Charles Manson. 3 weeks later another woman tried to kill Ford to start a revolution.
Forcing all these events into a single meaning seems strained.
This is what CSpan is for.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?536813-1/president-donald-trump-campaigns-butler-pa
Occam's Razor doesn't in any way reject a theory before it has been analyzed.
Setting up a ridiculously over complicated theory is simply not Occam's razor.
You don't need to go through all the turns of the theory to demonstrate it's not Occam's razor.
Also you critiqued my assessment of something broadcast live with a Hollywood movie
Think about those differences
I am thinking about how to write computer programs to solve the problem of which is most complicated (similar to the travelling salesman problem
Yup. It's leading you astray.
There had to be someone who saw him get out of his car with the rifle
I think this is an assumption..., but I'm very curious to know when he got there and how.
As for the police officer coming down the ladder.
I'm trying to think of scenarios where this would be correct. Perhaps better to get safe and alert other law enforcement that he saw a shooter with a gun on the roof?
I wonder what standard procedure would say about this.
Washington Post reporting 2 sniper units were Secret Service. 2 were local law enforcement. USSS would still be in charge and be responsible.
https://x.com/CarolLeonnig/status/1812554814045528390?t=6bPUcWjL-yxvmZzs0ygEKA&s=19
Suddenly huh?
Dr. Ruth was 96 years old. 96.
Simmons was 75 and had cancer earlier this year.
That isn't really an assumption, but is a conclusion based on just looking it up. (Sorry, that's a bit graphic. NSFW)
Dude, I saw FARGO. Steve Buscemi's wound was gnarly enough for me!! He got shot in the face!!! He's taking the car.
And it is an assumption. The hidden assumption is that there would be any difference if the wound grazed his cheek.
I suggest that if the same events occurred and the wound barely grazed Trump's cheek, there would be absolutely nothing different about this board today. We would all still be just as concerned and upset.
To me cheek versus ear is a distinction without a difference.
Not true. I do not assume there was a shot.
Whoa.
This doesn't seem very Occam's Razor. Now you have to account for gunshot sounds timed perfectly with multiple different injuries spaced out a bit, and synced to video and the picture that captures the bullet in flight.
I could make that shot. I couldn't do it all the time (I'd give myself one in ten at best),
This introduces complexity. Your main issue is you are assuming intentionality in the location of the wound. You are assuming meaning in the location of the wound.
Which is why I think this is the wrong approach.
It is not me who increased complexity, it is the number of possible end states that increases the complexity.
There's only a few end states that actually matter.
1 bullet completely misses 2 bullet is accurate. Trump is killed 3a Bullet it is not accurate, Trump severely injured. 3b. Bullet is not accurate, Trump with minor injury
That's how you look at something parsimoniously.
And you're right, I didn't look at the argument fully. Because it's not an Occam's razor analysis.
Um, wouldn't decent map software tell you virtually everything you need to know?
After all they announced the rally we'll before
The Saturday rally is scheduled to start at 5 p.m. at the Butler Farm Show, with doors opening four hours earlier. Western Pennsylvania is an area that the former president predominantly carried in 2020.
Using the info above in 5 minutes I was able to
Locate Butler Farm. Locate nearby buildings in line with the fairgrounds..... Or the big open field I assume was the fairgrounds. Calculate the distance from a nearby building
And I am by no means an expert at this stuff.
I counted 3 shots followed by 4 different sounding and quicker shots.
I assume the difference in sound had to do with one the distance of the shooters to the recorder. Sounds like the shooter got off three shots and the cops replied with four quick ones.
That sounds like good police work and responsible communication.
The finger comes up when the man is speaking
Man: There he is right there. Finger comes in at 14 seconds. Woman: where?
When they are saying laying flat on the roof nobody is pointing.
The also seem astonishingly blase at that moment.
Another weird thing is Right after this the video pans away to the right and to the ground. Doesn't seem like he was focusing on the roof. the man then says "what is happening" 25 seconds in
That audio seems more genuine to me and it seems a bit odd. If the guy actually had already seen the guy on the roof in the first 9 seconds of the video, he would then zoom away and ask that question.
Somebody answers that question but I can't hear what she says.
Then nothing.
No raises a voice until like 35 seconds in. Again, they are very calm at first.
There's a weird judder around 41 seconds in
Almost seems like an edit but I can't be sure.
The other thing that feels off to me is the exact audio that seems suspect to me is giving you information you cannot get from the video itself. There he is. He's on the roof laying down.
This feels like someone was filming caught people getting concerned like 35-40 seconds into the video and later when he reviewed the video realized he had footage of the shooter
And went back and made edits to the video Including doctoring the audio at the beginning to make it go viral.
I could majorly wrong, but there's definitely things odd about this. I would love to see if this person goes to the cops or comes forward.