Thanks for examining this 'problem' realistically. It's not an easy shot, but not that hard of one for 20 year old eyes. But to actually do it, and I don't mean hitting the target 15 out of 16 times, to actually do it takes more than training, it takes will too.
....in 1982...as a 22 year old Store Manager with McCopCo...the corporate entity of McDonald's, I was sent to McDonald's Hamburger University in Oakbrook, Illinois. While I spent 6 weeks learning about ergonomics, time & motion, systems analysis, financial planning and profit management, the most helpful course I took was in Human Motivation and Communications. I learned about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs...and how to identify people who communicate primarily from a Parental, Child or Adult Ego State. I learned how to actively listen for understanding, as opposed to listening from a defensive perspective. I learned how to identify the Parental Ego Stated people who use verbal abuse, ridicule and intimidation to get what they want, and I learned to listen for Child Ego Stated people who never accept responsibility for their actions, and always look to blame someone or something for their failures. I took those skills sets with me when I went to work for US DoD all over The US Empire. I learned to apply that knowledge when dealing with treasonous, corrupt, back-stabbing government executives. I used those skills to trap DoD Executives in a 23 year Whistle Blower Case that I won before The Merit Systems Protection Board, without the aid of an attorney. My developed ability to "Listen"...and to use what people say to judge their character, intent and agenda has helped me for over 40 years, from Japan to Korea, Bosnia to Hungary and all across The US, Far East & Europe. In combination with witnessing all of the corruption, war crimes and theft, I learned to listen to "Government-Speak"...and stand against it. When one learns to actively listen....one realizes that "The News" has been lying to us our entire lives. Shut them out of your life, and only listen to them for gathering intelligence about what they are trying to get away with.
I cannot put it any better than what you have stated. I learned how the GeezerMedia lie by actually doing it. I learned how to take negatives and make them positives. I learned how to say a lot without saying anything. It all comes down to linguistics and learning one's language and learning how to use it to avoid being used by it.
By the way, very interesting career you've had. Sounds like some intriguing experiences.
He used a red dot scope (holosun AEMS with solar backup) no magnification, which would have a two inch dot at one hundred meters at one hundred and forty yards the dot would cover half of Trump's head, with the strong crosswind it's likely he simply put the dot on his head and fired, the wind and Trump turning his head did the rest of the job saving Trump. These are also not great in full sunlight, I know I have one just like this.
I'm still a good shot, it's 50/50 whether I make that shot, especially under stressful conditions. I've been to combat twice, infantry, and I still say it's a hard shot. There is a reason why neither snipers or hunters take headshots as a rule. When there is no other choice you take what you are given, but it's not what you hope for.
And yes, even if you have the tools to filter out the propaganda it's not easy to do it, because propaganda works on so many levels that even being smart and understanding how it works is no guarantee that it won't work. In fact it will work to some extent whether you want to believe it or not.
By the way, it's entirely possible the entire story went down just as the propagandists have declared, but since I know they are liars, I have no reason to believe them. My Default position is to assume the lies are there and to go looking for them, rather than to ever assume they tell the truth, which frankly speaking would make me terribly naive after all the things I've seen them lie about.
The best lies contain an element of truth. The thought process is "if that's true, the rest must be true". The mass media are a psychological weapon of incredible power. Combined with the theories and practices that have been honed over the last century, plus the nature of the medium itself and the workings of the human mind, it is almost impossible not to be affected.
For this analysis, I opted to stick with provable facts. I did not assume Crooks was the shooter, nor that he had particular gear at his disposal, such as a red dot. I stayed within the facts as they are known and looked at what is mathematically provable (target size at a known distance, with some rounding). I do not assume all the other information about who, what, when, why, and how is true, since I can't independently verify any of it. The mass media are throwing chaff into the discussion to keep everyone focused on minutae and introduce doubt at every level. I assume none of it is true. However, despoiling the crime scene and not following standard procedures certainly implies a number of issues.
I saw a closeup of the scope on the rifle, it was a good enough picture to actually see the brand name on it and the solar strip, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. It doesn't make much difference at that range anyway, either one would have been a difficult shot.
You might be referring to the image enhancement done by Mike Adams (@HealthRanger). If so, it is compelling, but using AI enhancement algorithms does introduce an element of doubt, without knowing the process behind it. As you say, though, it doesn't change my calculus in any way.
I follow healthranger's work, but I was referring to a video by Mrgunsngear on youtube. The solar backup is the giveaway on it, but they are all relatively the same and it's not actually known if he used it. He did have flip out open sites as well, so could have used either. The red dot is probably easier, but not so much that it changes anything really.
Keep looking back until you find the first lie. It is quite possible to find the lie behind the obvious and assume that you have found the truth behind the story... in my experience (35 years in alternative medicine), that is just a preset layer which is not the first lie.... keep going until you are sure you are right back at first cause. This, of course, requires you to do a great deal of detective work and independent reasoning. The philosophers search for "a priori" is the holy grail in all narrative illusion repulsion work. Lies have layers, the truth is unique.
Absolutely correct. This is the First Principles analysis. What are the underlying assumptions, and how many can we eliminate to get at the truth. So many times, folks make assumptions based on personal biases and beliefs, and those color the results to a greater or lesser degree. Jumping to conclusions without all the facts is the worst possible way to proceed.
Below is an analysis supporting the hypothesis that Trump's assassination attempt was likely staged. One smoking gun is that according the photo of the first bullet taken by Doug Mills, the first bullet couldn’t have grazed Trump’s upper ear. So far, I have not seen any solid rebuttal of this analysis.
The rebuttal is in the number of assumptions made to arrive at the conclusion. Occam's Razor states that the proposition with the fewest number of assumptions is most likely the correct one. I have not assumed motive or intent, and my one key assumption is that a shot was fired at a target with certain physical parameters that are reasonably provable. The rest is speculation, and while interesting, cannot be weighted against a number of others.
If a forensic evidence supporting the official narrative of the failed assassination attempt had been faked, we can easily entertain the idea that more forensics evidences could have been faked hence the staged assassination attempt hypothesis is highly likely.
Lost in all the discussion of "faked assassination" is the body of a dead father and husband who protected his daughter from a sniper's bullet, and two other folks critically wounded in the attack. At the end of the day, I don't buy the faked attack, though I have a lot of questions about the photo you refer to.
That's entirely possible, but probability depends on a great many facts being assembled and analyzed. Since the crime scene was scrubbed almost immediately, it is safe to assume a cover-up of some sort has taken place. Who and why are questions with more forensic work that will probably never be done, or the results will never be released. It is certain that the USSS and the FBI are not motivated to inform us of the evidence.
Just with regards to NOT listening to ANY MSM: I've been saying the same for a few years at least. Why? Because most anyone will generally not think that they would sit there in front of a camera and lie to you. And people will "generally" believe most of what they are being told. But they do lie to you! Near continuously. And people often don't recognize how they do it. They do most by what they will never tell you. They do it by what THEY choose to focus on. They do it by changing the intent about what someone said. They do it by clipping statements AND videos to get a different message. They do by routinely offering opinions AS news that people often don't pick up on. After filtering through all these angles along with possibly more, arguably there'd be 1% or less of 'the news.'
All valid points, and I can say from experience that they do lie easily and frequently. What most people fail to consider is that any given video footage only represents a particular point of view, influenced by a great many factors. It is NOT reality. Once the footage is edited, it is further removed from reality, and more intent and bias are introduced. How the footage is positioned in context of other stories further skews reality, and the narrative added to it (contextualizing) removes the footage even further from reality. Literally NOTHING we see on TeeVee is real, even if the footage is completely untouched and no enhancements of any kind are added. Once this is understood, then we can consider other factors, such as motive, intent to deceive, etc.
Well, as noted, the sphere is all points visible to the shooter. This helps visualize the situation, as well as emphasize the true scale of the problem In order to make the realize size calculation, I did narrow the problem down to a circle to obtain the circumference, and thus scale of the target. As for cones, that's more geometry and trigonometry than I'm willing to do for free. If you are willing to tackle that one, I'll be happy to post your results. Please show your work.
Sorry, but I'm a math nerd. A sphere would contain a lot of places far underground, and the sky. The cone calculation is easier than you would think. Slant height is obtained by the Pythagorean Theorem. It's the hypotenuse of a right triangle with the radius and height being the legs. If the shooter is 15 feet off the ground, and the radius is 150 yards from the point directly below the shooter, then the range of the shot would be 150 yards plus a foot. Like I said, a very shallow cone, in which the slant height just barely exceeds the radius. A trivial distinction in the real world. And he missed, which is what's really important.
While all you say is true, it introduces a number of assumptions that I avoided, such as height from ground. The sphere has only 2 assumptions, center point and target. My goal was to determine the angular size of the target at a certain distance to get a mental picture of the level of difficulty. The easiest way to do that is a sphere and radius. It does not matter what else is included in the sphere, since the size of the circumference is all we need for this exercise. For a general audience, I achieved my goal of converting the facts into an analogy that is accessible to as many people as possible -- a stack of paper. The rest, as they say, is academic. This also happens to be a calculation I frequently do for audience perspective and projections.
Before you turn off your tv, here's a different take on a vanishing point. 1971 when cars were cars and not appliances and men were....well, I shall say no more.
One assumes you are referring to the excellent 1971 flick with Barry Newman and Cleavon Little. It's not cheating to enjoy classic film, just turn off the mind-bending noise that is modern GeezerMedia. Most of my cars have been early 70s - Buick Riviera, Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, Pontiac Catalina ragtop. It's a cryin' shame that shade-tree mechanics have gone the way of the dodo. A fine male hobby that was.
I had a 74 Buick Riviera, with a 454 V-8. That sucker was a living room on wheels. I had a 70 Pontiac Catalina 400 ragtop that was the greatest cruiser I've ever owned. It did 120 without breaking a sweat, with nothing but a mild breeze in the cabin. I would drive 24 hours to West Texas just to have long, straight empty roads to let 'er rip. My 74 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was almost to smooth and comfortable. Took some of the joy out of the road, but man what a ride.
The shooter in Butler, PA, did have a scope of sorts on this rifle. It was a sight of the target that put a red dot on the target and that's where the bullet would go. The sight didn't magnify the image of the target, just showed when the rifle was on target.
Of course, the rife and sight would have to be sighted in at a gun range first to make sure the sight and rifle were in harmony. Larry Johnson, the former CIA counter spy and a licensed rifle instructor, says it is completely possible that the shooter would have killed Trump if Trump hadn't turned his head.
IMO, the Grand Poo-Bahs wanted both Trump and Biden gone before the election. Only Trump is left. My guess is that he will be dead or voluntarily retire from the election soon.
I don't think the kid could do it freehand - no vice or pods or nuttin'. I agree, though, that the Plan was to clear the top of both parties, and Trump screwed it all up.
Just Austin, which has always been a Bumbledick enclave, even before the Refugees arrived bringing their mistakes with them. There are parts of Texas that could arm the Ukraine if they had a mind to.
The biggest hurdle is the iron sight, which would completely obscure the target at that distance, even with 20-year-old eyes. The human head is 1/6th of height, so that's 1/32 of an inch, plus the adrenalin and pounding heart beat and pure fear. I can't imagine that kid pulling it off.
Thanks for examining this 'problem' realistically. It's not an easy shot, but not that hard of one for 20 year old eyes. But to actually do it, and I don't mean hitting the target 15 out of 16 times, to actually do it takes more than training, it takes will too.
Edwin, All it takes is determination, hatred, and lack of conscience.
And a target that had a monitor on the podium so he didn't have to look at the screen to be sure the correct slide was up.
....in 1982...as a 22 year old Store Manager with McCopCo...the corporate entity of McDonald's, I was sent to McDonald's Hamburger University in Oakbrook, Illinois. While I spent 6 weeks learning about ergonomics, time & motion, systems analysis, financial planning and profit management, the most helpful course I took was in Human Motivation and Communications. I learned about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs...and how to identify people who communicate primarily from a Parental, Child or Adult Ego State. I learned how to actively listen for understanding, as opposed to listening from a defensive perspective. I learned how to identify the Parental Ego Stated people who use verbal abuse, ridicule and intimidation to get what they want, and I learned to listen for Child Ego Stated people who never accept responsibility for their actions, and always look to blame someone or something for their failures. I took those skills sets with me when I went to work for US DoD all over The US Empire. I learned to apply that knowledge when dealing with treasonous, corrupt, back-stabbing government executives. I used those skills to trap DoD Executives in a 23 year Whistle Blower Case that I won before The Merit Systems Protection Board, without the aid of an attorney. My developed ability to "Listen"...and to use what people say to judge their character, intent and agenda has helped me for over 40 years, from Japan to Korea, Bosnia to Hungary and all across The US, Far East & Europe. In combination with witnessing all of the corruption, war crimes and theft, I learned to listen to "Government-Speak"...and stand against it. When one learns to actively listen....one realizes that "The News" has been lying to us our entire lives. Shut them out of your life, and only listen to them for gathering intelligence about what they are trying to get away with.
I cannot put it any better than what you have stated. I learned how the GeezerMedia lie by actually doing it. I learned how to take negatives and make them positives. I learned how to say a lot without saying anything. It all comes down to linguistics and learning one's language and learning how to use it to avoid being used by it.
By the way, very interesting career you've had. Sounds like some intriguing experiences.
He used a red dot scope (holosun AEMS with solar backup) no magnification, which would have a two inch dot at one hundred meters at one hundred and forty yards the dot would cover half of Trump's head, with the strong crosswind it's likely he simply put the dot on his head and fired, the wind and Trump turning his head did the rest of the job saving Trump. These are also not great in full sunlight, I know I have one just like this.
I'm still a good shot, it's 50/50 whether I make that shot, especially under stressful conditions. I've been to combat twice, infantry, and I still say it's a hard shot. There is a reason why neither snipers or hunters take headshots as a rule. When there is no other choice you take what you are given, but it's not what you hope for.
And yes, even if you have the tools to filter out the propaganda it's not easy to do it, because propaganda works on so many levels that even being smart and understanding how it works is no guarantee that it won't work. In fact it will work to some extent whether you want to believe it or not.
By the way, it's entirely possible the entire story went down just as the propagandists have declared, but since I know they are liars, I have no reason to believe them. My Default position is to assume the lies are there and to go looking for them, rather than to ever assume they tell the truth, which frankly speaking would make me terribly naive after all the things I've seen them lie about.
The best lies contain an element of truth. The thought process is "if that's true, the rest must be true". The mass media are a psychological weapon of incredible power. Combined with the theories and practices that have been honed over the last century, plus the nature of the medium itself and the workings of the human mind, it is almost impossible not to be affected.
For this analysis, I opted to stick with provable facts. I did not assume Crooks was the shooter, nor that he had particular gear at his disposal, such as a red dot. I stayed within the facts as they are known and looked at what is mathematically provable (target size at a known distance, with some rounding). I do not assume all the other information about who, what, when, why, and how is true, since I can't independently verify any of it. The mass media are throwing chaff into the discussion to keep everyone focused on minutae and introduce doubt at every level. I assume none of it is true. However, despoiling the crime scene and not following standard procedures certainly implies a number of issues.
I saw a closeup of the scope on the rifle, it was a good enough picture to actually see the brand name on it and the solar strip, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. It doesn't make much difference at that range anyway, either one would have been a difficult shot.
You might be referring to the image enhancement done by Mike Adams (@HealthRanger). If so, it is compelling, but using AI enhancement algorithms does introduce an element of doubt, without knowing the process behind it. As you say, though, it doesn't change my calculus in any way.
I follow healthranger's work, but I was referring to a video by Mrgunsngear on youtube. The solar backup is the giveaway on it, but they are all relatively the same and it's not actually known if he used it. He did have flip out open sites as well, so could have used either. The red dot is probably easier, but not so much that it changes anything really.
I wasn't aware of the video, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll look it up.
Keep looking back until you find the first lie. It is quite possible to find the lie behind the obvious and assume that you have found the truth behind the story... in my experience (35 years in alternative medicine), that is just a preset layer which is not the first lie.... keep going until you are sure you are right back at first cause. This, of course, requires you to do a great deal of detective work and independent reasoning. The philosophers search for "a priori" is the holy grail in all narrative illusion repulsion work. Lies have layers, the truth is unique.
Well said.
Absolutely correct. This is the First Principles analysis. What are the underlying assumptions, and how many can we eliminate to get at the truth. So many times, folks make assumptions based on personal biases and beliefs, and those color the results to a greater or lesser degree. Jumping to conclusions without all the facts is the worst possible way to proceed.
Below is an analysis supporting the hypothesis that Trump's assassination attempt was likely staged. One smoking gun is that according the photo of the first bullet taken by Doug Mills, the first bullet couldn’t have grazed Trump’s upper ear. So far, I have not seen any solid rebuttal of this analysis.
Part 1/2
https://nostr.band/?q=note1v0xru6htnleyhgm22n4vnhn0hz77dn3ehmm67kavf3hyhnk0axnq6ke8nc
Part 2/2
https://nostr.band/?q=note1fcg6jx56jkmjwczmnqpckswhzydx20pyqlfrqfvkuh7dq5vudyhs0qh4z6
The rebuttal is in the number of assumptions made to arrive at the conclusion. Occam's Razor states that the proposition with the fewest number of assumptions is most likely the correct one. I have not assumed motive or intent, and my one key assumption is that a shot was fired at a target with certain physical parameters that are reasonably provable. The rest is speculation, and while interesting, cannot be weighted against a number of others.
Focus on the canary in the coal mine: Doug Mills photo of the bullet. We now have evidence that this photo was tampered with: https://nostr.band/?q=note1svl35vdzhvd8xugm4sy24qggnlgvaq86gnz7v98yhecgca02hgfq92d2fe
If a forensic evidence supporting the official narrative of the failed assassination attempt had been faked, we can easily entertain the idea that more forensics evidences could have been faked hence the staged assassination attempt hypothesis is highly likely.
Lost in all the discussion of "faked assassination" is the body of a dead father and husband who protected his daughter from a sniper's bullet, and two other folks critically wounded in the attack. At the end of the day, I don't buy the faked attack, though I have a lot of questions about the photo you refer to.
The 2nd floor room with the open window was the perfect sniper nest to take out Trump and then the Patsy. Nothing else makes any sense.
That's entirely possible, but probability depends on a great many facts being assembled and analyzed. Since the crime scene was scrubbed almost immediately, it is safe to assume a cover-up of some sort has taken place. Who and why are questions with more forensic work that will probably never be done, or the results will never be released. It is certain that the USSS and the FBI are not motivated to inform us of the evidence.
Just with regards to NOT listening to ANY MSM: I've been saying the same for a few years at least. Why? Because most anyone will generally not think that they would sit there in front of a camera and lie to you. And people will "generally" believe most of what they are being told. But they do lie to you! Near continuously. And people often don't recognize how they do it. They do most by what they will never tell you. They do it by what THEY choose to focus on. They do it by changing the intent about what someone said. They do it by clipping statements AND videos to get a different message. They do by routinely offering opinions AS news that people often don't pick up on. After filtering through all these angles along with possibly more, arguably there'd be 1% or less of 'the news.'
All valid points, and I can say from experience that they do lie easily and frequently. What most people fail to consider is that any given video footage only represents a particular point of view, influenced by a great many factors. It is NOT reality. Once the footage is edited, it is further removed from reality, and more intent and bias are introduced. How the footage is positioned in context of other stories further skews reality, and the narrative added to it (contextualizing) removes the footage even further from reality. Literally NOTHING we see on TeeVee is real, even if the footage is completely untouched and no enhancements of any kind are added. Once this is understood, then we can consider other factors, such as motive, intent to deceive, etc.
Why a sphere? A circle would be better. Or a very shallow cone with the shooter at the apex.
Well, as noted, the sphere is all points visible to the shooter. This helps visualize the situation, as well as emphasize the true scale of the problem In order to make the realize size calculation, I did narrow the problem down to a circle to obtain the circumference, and thus scale of the target. As for cones, that's more geometry and trigonometry than I'm willing to do for free. If you are willing to tackle that one, I'll be happy to post your results. Please show your work.
Sorry, but I'm a math nerd. A sphere would contain a lot of places far underground, and the sky. The cone calculation is easier than you would think. Slant height is obtained by the Pythagorean Theorem. It's the hypotenuse of a right triangle with the radius and height being the legs. If the shooter is 15 feet off the ground, and the radius is 150 yards from the point directly below the shooter, then the range of the shot would be 150 yards plus a foot. Like I said, a very shallow cone, in which the slant height just barely exceeds the radius. A trivial distinction in the real world. And he missed, which is what's really important.
While all you say is true, it introduces a number of assumptions that I avoided, such as height from ground. The sphere has only 2 assumptions, center point and target. My goal was to determine the angular size of the target at a certain distance to get a mental picture of the level of difficulty. The easiest way to do that is a sphere and radius. It does not matter what else is included in the sphere, since the size of the circumference is all we need for this exercise. For a general audience, I achieved my goal of converting the facts into an analogy that is accessible to as many people as possible -- a stack of paper. The rest, as they say, is academic. This also happens to be a calculation I frequently do for audience perspective and projections.
Before you turn off your tv, here's a different take on a vanishing point. 1971 when cars were cars and not appliances and men were....well, I shall say no more.
One assumes you are referring to the excellent 1971 flick with Barry Newman and Cleavon Little. It's not cheating to enjoy classic film, just turn off the mind-bending noise that is modern GeezerMedia. Most of my cars have been early 70s - Buick Riviera, Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, Pontiac Catalina ragtop. It's a cryin' shame that shade-tree mechanics have gone the way of the dodo. A fine male hobby that was.
I still love the old Buicks and Pontiacs! Hoping to pick one up next year.
I had a 74 Buick Riviera, with a 454 V-8. That sucker was a living room on wheels. I had a 70 Pontiac Catalina 400 ragtop that was the greatest cruiser I've ever owned. It did 120 without breaking a sweat, with nothing but a mild breeze in the cabin. I would drive 24 hours to West Texas just to have long, straight empty roads to let 'er rip. My 74 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was almost to smooth and comfortable. Took some of the joy out of the road, but man what a ride.
I loved the rebel.
There was a time when rebels and outlaws were American heroes. We lost that sometime within our lifetimes. I blame the Disco Era.
The shooter in Butler, PA, did have a scope of sorts on this rifle. It was a sight of the target that put a red dot on the target and that's where the bullet would go. The sight didn't magnify the image of the target, just showed when the rifle was on target.
Of course, the rife and sight would have to be sighted in at a gun range first to make sure the sight and rifle were in harmony. Larry Johnson, the former CIA counter spy and a licensed rifle instructor, says it is completely possible that the shooter would have killed Trump if Trump hadn't turned his head.
IMO, the Grand Poo-Bahs wanted both Trump and Biden gone before the election. Only Trump is left. My guess is that he will be dead or voluntarily retire from the election soon.
What happens after that is slavery.
I don't think the kid could do it freehand - no vice or pods or nuttin'. I agree, though, that the Plan was to clear the top of both parties, and Trump screwed it all up.
I know a lot more people in Wyoming that have guns than those I know in Texas.
It doesn't help that Texas is becoming as Californicated as Colorado has.
Just Austin, which has always been a Bumbledick enclave, even before the Refugees arrived bringing their mistakes with them. There are parts of Texas that could arm the Ukraine if they had a mind to.
They might know about Victoria Nuland's deceit and know that the Ukrainians are getting what they deserve for playing along with it.
The biggest hurdle is the iron sight, which would completely obscure the target at that distance, even with 20-year-old eyes. The human head is 1/6th of height, so that's 1/32 of an inch, plus the adrenalin and pounding heart beat and pure fear. I can't imagine that kid pulling it off.
He got plenty of help from the Secret Service.
That much seems plainly obvious
It isn't any more obvious to Americans than anything else is not.
I'm still sorting the negatives out to determine what the positive assertion is.