Replying to 2759394a...

Just based on "qui bono" alone, the faked assassination attempt should be the #1 leading hypothesis, until proven otherwise. The evidence for a second shooter at an undisclosed location, should be icing on the cake. Why on earth would that second shooter not have taken another shot while Trump was grandstanding with his fist in the air?

And then we have the fake Doug Mills photo. And the Cullens analysis of the first shot. And the fact that Trump is now making public appearances with his ear uncovered, and there's no scar. They're laughing at us.

Yeah, triangulation of the shot locations would be good to know. Probably the last nail in the coffin for the "lone shooter" hypothesis, and possibly proof that nobody ever fired a shot in Trump's direction.

Which leads to my question: do you have a list of "other researchers seeking the truth"? Hoping that somebody else is following the forensics with the same degree of attention that Martenson is proudly displaying.
Avatar
LogicallyMinded 1y ago

It would be hard to proof that no one shoot at #Trump but we should expect by now to have indisputable evidence that Trump got shot at which we don’t. The problem is that the easy evidences to prove this would have been gathered by the FBI which except in the scenario of the lone wolf, would have no interest in providing them. I haven’t seen any other thorough research supporting the staged assassination attempt, not that there is none but the household researchers that I know don’t seem to be exploring this scenario. There are some interesting stuff scattered on Reddit but it’s so heavily censored that it’s not a very fruitful ground for discussion.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

27
2759394a... 1y ago

Thanks for the information. Three hurdles: (1) Doing the analysis would be time consuming and possibly error prone. (2) Even if the results showed that the shots came from behind the bleachers and in the trees, with none aimed at Trump -- nobody would believe it. (3) No way to get publicity for the conclusions.

But on the other hand, I would be curious to know the results. Maybe I'll wait a few days to see if Martenson does it, and then check his work.

27
2759394a... 1y ago

Oh, and one other thing. Even if Trump is a deep state asset, and even if he did fake his own assassination attempt: "Orange HItler" is probably still a better choice than "Cackling Kamala", to use Dave Fairtex's monikers for them. Accordingly, maybe better to spend time researching Harris?

Or, recognize that we can't vote our way out of this mess, nor research our way out??

Avatar
LogicallyMinded 1y ago

I’m not advocating for not voting although that’s really just a low effort insignificant result everybody can do. I have no trust in the US elections results though. The best thing each of us can do is to opt-out as much a possible from the system of control which requires awareness then action. I don’t think we’d get anything different between Harris or Trump although the perception of what we’re getting will be different. I have hope that Kennedy may not be controlled opposition although his VP pick is a little suspicious but who knows, we may find out that he’s too owns by some interests.