Due respect to Garand Thumb, of whom I am a fan, and I appreciate his efforts, but this is quite irresponsible. I get that he's excited to discover something about the assassination attempt using his own skills and experience, but that sort of thing leads him and everyone who subscribes away from the truth.
The funny thing is, his skills and experience would be applicable but he goes down the wrong path so they're misapplied. For example, he should note that the report of the first three rounds differs substantially from the next five and then try to explain that. He completely missed it.
The main point is the rifle: the "authorities" are extremely cagey about it. AKAIK, the totality that has been admitted can only be traced back as far as this text from Fox News:
Law enforcement sources tell Fox news that the rifle Crooks used at Trump’s rally on Saturday was a DPMS AR-15 that uses ammunition with a 5.56 mm diameter.
Ah, the classic "sources", no names, no organizations, no direct quotes, no existence. By now anyone reading this should know for a fact that the truth is anything except what was stated. Also, note how easy it was to inject this "fact" into the information sphere. At least they didn't say he was hurling box cutters.
The thing is, everything Garand Thumb says is true. It's true, but it all works to advance the official narrative in a subconscious way. Sure, it refutes the cockamamie theory that TMC was an ultra-sniper, but that's about it. Everyone ends up more firmly looking the wrong way because they've now "seen a recreation of the shooting", and will discuss that endlessly.
The psychological effects of such things cannot be understated. You can examine this article regarding the courtroom counterpart known as "forensic animation":
Off the top of my head, it's probably not coincidental that four of the nine cases examined were phony social engineering ops: OJ, Depp, Rittenhouse and Trayvon Martin. That's how these bullshit psychodramas were sold.
In one case that may have been legitimate, I find this quote as chilling as it is confirmatory of my point:
“They watched my client execute his wife,” said Joe D’Andreas, Serge’s defense attorney. “When the animation ran for the few minutes that it ran, there was silence, absolute silence. It was eerie. You thought you saw a murder.”
I'm shocked such "evidence" is allowed in any courtroom, but YouTube has no problem (unless it's something bad about SH, right?). The subconscious and unrecognized cost with GT's video is that it inadvertently acts as a mental firewall in front of the truth.
Yes, that's why "They" allow it. They'd do it themselves if They felt They needed to.
What the debunks, if I could use that term, was the idea that someone nicked the ear on purpose, or the idea that a 5.56 would cause explosive damage. And I suppose, what kind of damage the counter sniper team's gun would cause.
No, sorry. Depending on a lot of factors, that's not true. You're very, very wrong and ignorant on this.
The thing is, a bullet transfers kinetic energy. But it has to hit something substantive to do that. Passing through an ear does not stop lead to the energy of the bullet being expended.
And never mind the pretty clear pictures of his wounded ear.
That "wound" is a joke. The blood was a joke. The photo op after was a joke. Secret service allowing the slow walk off for the photo was a joke. Secret service putting a small woman in just the right place to not block the shot is a joke. Trump lying about it right after and contradicting the video evidence also a joke.
I'm just trying to introduce you to reality. Yes you should look at my username and pray/repent to find truth.
Due respect to Garand Thumb, of whom I am a fan, and I appreciate his efforts, but this is quite irresponsible. I get that he's excited to discover something about the assassination attempt using his own skills and experience, but that sort of thing leads him and everyone who subscribes away from the truth.
The funny thing is, his skills and experience would be applicable but he goes down the wrong path so they're misapplied. For example, he should note that the report of the first three rounds differs substantially from the next five and then try to explain that. He completely missed it.
The main point is the rifle: the "authorities" are extremely cagey about it. AKAIK, the totality that has been admitted can only be traced back as far as this text from Fox News:
FBI leads investigation into attempted assassination of former President Trump (see entry for 7/15 "Family of would-be Trump assassin cooperating with FBI, laptop being analyzed at Quantico")
Ah, the classic "sources", no names, no organizations, no direct quotes, no existence. By now anyone reading this should know for a fact that the truth is anything except what was stated. Also, note how easy it was to inject this "fact" into the information sphere. At least they didn't say he was hurling box cutters.
The thing is, everything Garand Thumb says is true. It's true, but it all works to advance the official narrative in a subconscious way. Sure, it refutes the cockamamie theory that TMC was an ultra-sniper, but that's about it. Everyone ends up more firmly looking the wrong way because they've now "seen a recreation of the shooting", and will discuss that endlessly.
The psychological effects of such things cannot be understated. You can examine this article regarding the courtroom counterpart known as "forensic animation":
9 High-Profile Cases Where Evidence Animation Influenced the Outcome
Off the top of my head, it's probably not coincidental that four of the nine cases examined were phony social engineering ops: OJ, Depp, Rittenhouse and Trayvon Martin. That's how these bullshit psychodramas were sold.
In one case that may have been legitimate, I find this quote as chilling as it is confirmatory of my point:
I'm shocked such "evidence" is allowed in any courtroom, but YouTube has no problem (unless it's something bad about SH, right?). The subconscious and unrecognized cost with GT's video is that it inadvertently acts as a mental firewall in front of the truth.
Yes, that's why "They" allow it. They'd do it themselves if They felt They needed to.
What the debunks, if I could use that term, was the idea that someone nicked the ear on purpose, or the idea that a 5.56 would cause explosive damage. And I suppose, what kind of damage the counter sniper team's gun would cause.
That's about all I could ask for.
A 5.56 would cause serious damage, not the magic and non visible nick that went from bleeding to coagulated in less than 1 minute.
No, sorry. Depending on a lot of factors, that's not true. You're very, very wrong and ignorant on this.
The thing is, a bullet transfers kinetic energy. But it has to hit something substantive to do that. Passing through an ear does not stop lead to the energy of the bullet being expended.
And never mind the pretty clear pictures of his wounded ear.
Change your username, or do what it says.
That "wound" is a joke. The blood was a joke. The photo op after was a joke. Secret service allowing the slow walk off for the photo was a joke. Secret service putting a small woman in just the right place to not block the shot is a joke. Trump lying about it right after and contradicting the video evidence also a joke.
I'm just trying to introduce you to reality. Yes you should look at my username and pray/repent to find truth.
I'd laugh at you, but that would be uncharitable.
Misdirection. Nobody shot his ear, they aren't risking that. They just applied makeup and did some bad acting.
They've probably taken a small piece out after the fast so Trump can prove his wounds to people.
Of course, it's all so clear. You've got it all figured out then.