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.
For the alternative hypothesis we really just need one assumption in this regard. That assumption is that the outcome was what was intended.
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.
But there's no harm in calling aapparent for a few hours. By the midnight press conference they called it an assassination attempt.
I have no problem on investigations being led by the facts before coming to conclusions.
I'm not saying this matches the facts of yesterday but an example could be a guy who wanted to do a mass shooting of audience members, but not Trump. Like let's said they found a note from the guy saying his GF dumped him and she and her family were going to be at the rally.
False early conclusions can lead to investigate dead ends and wasted time.
I still don't have an issue with not be definitive on the record immediately.
It's like the 72 hour rule in action.
I mean imagine how much better social media would be if people were sure about things before they spoke.
So there multiple years long "GAW events." In my lifetime that Americans were completely unaware of.
And your evidence of this is someone obepublished a cartoon on Watergate on July 14, 1974? The biggest story in America all through 1973 and 1974? Literally one of the most watched events in TV history.
And the key event on July 14th is not even something that happened, but something you think might have happened?
There is likely an July 14, 1974 intelligence agency “threat” issued or “event” that was reinforced on 8-8-74 to push him out.
Color me skeptical.
For example, June 1972 seems a more significant date that pushed out Nixon.
https://youtu.be/FMPxHbroDpQ?si=x_0NN7lgkv0PFBYs
Two other events happened in July 1974 that pushed out Nixon. And we know the dates of them
July 24, 1974 United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court case was decided.The court ruled Nixon had turn over the tapes of his conversations to the special prosecutor.
These tapes revealed that in June 1972 Nixon covered up Watergate and was lying for years.
July 30, 1973 3 articles of impeachment were adopted. The impeachment process started in October 1973. So you can find tons of cartoons that year about Watergate and tons of other important dates.
The straw that broke the camel's back was when Nixon in early August released a transcript of the tape linked above. His political support vanished once the public saw he obstructed justice and he was about to be impeached and convicted.
This is not an example of the principle of parsimony that underlies 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.
Great Awakening Attempts?????
A shot from behind would have entered Trump's head.
A shot 180° behind the Trump shooter would have grazed Trump in the exact same way
What do you mean the audio was doctored?
Why?
They could have traced the gun? There could be a lot of other things they traced.
He was said not to have I'd on him.
I think he was not telling the police
But yelling towards the police
Unclear how far away he actually was from the police.
I'd be very curious to find that out.
Reagan was shot very early in his term,
Things got worse, then they got better
If the election was in 1982, it would have not been that blowout.
Not much you could tell by the timing of the attempt on Regan
It never went to trial. She withdrew the lawsuit.
You know about this story because of the mainstream media.
That is a BBC reporter getting the story on the ground.
That story is coming the MSM.
You see he is taking to a reporter right?
Ok
When you say prophesied in April. What are you referring to ?
Edit. I see the video link now. I just saw a still before
So he says this will cause Trump to become born again. We shall see.
Why do you think Barron was present?
The actual gunshot would have been very far away. So you would not have a sonic wave powerful enough to bust a eardrum.
It would have required contact from the bullet. And if that was the case, there would be way more damage to Trump's ear.
There's lots of other protectes including Supreme Court, justices and and others. But presidential candidates definitely get Secret Service protection.
I think I saw some talk of the Secret Service detail being boosted in recent days because we're so close to the convention.
Trump would have reacted to the impact of a high speed bullet.
Even if he was wearing a vest. We would see impact/Trump reaction
The Vincent guy's shtick is he goes around to Trump events isn't it?
I don't know how he would have gotten seated on stage though.
Twitter link says this
BREAKING: Thomas Matthew Crooks ID'd as the suspect who shot at Donald Trump at his PA rally.
One problem it appears that guy with long blond hair has posted video on social media since the shooting saying they got the wrong guy https://x.com/Chriscoveries/status/1812352005706485808?t=ZipFYK1kEmfQkzfkOcr6PQ&s=19
Could have been a troll. It seems like the pic in the blue shirt could be a guy pasting himself as a troll.
I'm hearing another name thrown, around, but I try not to post rumors
EDIT: FBI has now confirmed Thomas Matthew Crooks as the shooter.
This appears to be the sequence
- Bullet is behind Trump but has already knicked him
2 Trump reacts.
3 Trump's blood
https://x.com/meridithmcgraw/status/1812291929951916167?t=5rQFSgeARnl5h-nuuuApQQ&s=19
I see. I thought you questioning the veracity of this.
I guess you can you say that aboutvabout the video everyone is rerunning over and over.
A. I think there's no chest shot today. Trump would have reacted differently.
B. Unless it's a spur of the moment thing, I think the slightest bit of research would reveal Trump has worn body armor. I've read about this multiple times and I'm not a guy planning something like this.
So it seems illusory opsec.
I'm not following.Walk me through it?
Also, when you're yelling at someone from far away, you assume they can hear you.
But say the cops were 30 yd away. They'd be hearing noise from all over from everybody including the speech through the speakers.