Nostr Web Client

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.

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??

Replying to

LogicallyMinded

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.

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.

Replying to

LogicallyMinded

But I agree that using triangulation to determine where the shots are coming from would be interesting to know (I’m not going to do this work though) although, I think the focus on all researchers seeking the truth should be to either debunk evidence that Doug Mills photo is faked or to include this evidence to their reasoning. The location of the shooters doesn’t matter if the #TrumpAssassination turns out to be staged.

27

2759394a... 1y ago

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.

Replying to

LogicallyMinded

It seems as Chris Martenson is still ignoring to discuss evidence (that he was made aware of) proving that the #Trump shooting was a #StagedAssassination. Chris had rejected this hypothesis since the beginning which is okay as it was only a speculation among others at the time but when you claim to do a « citizens investigation » and you ignore breakthrough evidences that would change the current conclusions, we really have to question the motive of Chris. He’s obviously an intelligent man and although it’s possible that is political bias clouts his judgement, I think it’s more likely that Chris is a disinfo agent serving us a limited hangout.

27

2759394a... 1y ago

Hello LM. Regardless of whether Chris's problem is that he's an agent, or just highly biased, I've lost confidence in his investigation. But he's surfaced a lot of evidence: he says he has six videos from different locations around the crime scene. Is anybody else processing all that evidence? It seems like it might be possible to triangulate the various audio sources to find out where shots were coming from.

Profile: 2759394a...