Very informative video. Wife Helen Comperatore is visible here (her pic is public now), and I think I picked out the two daughters, one of whom is Allyson.
See a still shot of almost this same moment.
I haven't seen the line of fire graphic to explain this one yet. Plus, both other crowd victims were said to have two entry wounds (both are currently stable).
"Stage right" means rightward from the performers' perspective, is that what you meant?
I understand all that, and the agent behind the stage makes (only slightly) more sense in this scenario. As a natural skeptic, I look for the holes in all the theories, and at this date they all have them.
I don't think the white hats would brainwash a kamikaze. Plus he is clearly dead, no getting around that one.
I don't think there was coordination in the idea of Trump turning his head before he could be sure the shooter was about to fire.
There were five people allegedly injured by gunfire with at least seven entry wounds: Trump, the shooter, Comperatore, and two other victims.
Note well: James Copenhaver was shot in the leg and in the abdomen, and David Dutch was shot in the liver and in the chest. How many magic bullets went off in all? Where were they sitting? The snipers weren't on silent, were they?
I do know one person capable of coordinating these events to get his own message across: God.
I've already said Penn & Teller would've turned this gig down.
You have to have your president figure able to manage competent sleight-of-hand, which has never been Trump's interest. He would need to have a blood packet behind his ear that would pop open upon being pressurized, and he would need to access it immediately when the sound is given, which he must strain for and can't miss. That's because the before photo has a clean hand and the after photo has blood on his hand. That's trusting a whole lot to one not trained in legerdemain.
More important you have to have someone volunteer as kamikaze because that person was filmed alive and then photographed dead. The risk of substituting a body in plain sight is too great; there's no control over visibility lines. The white hats would never volunteer someone, and the white hats would also not trust a black-hat operation to get inches from the president's brain. They might even verify that the shooter's gun has been disabled (think The Jackal) but if it's in the shooter's sole possession they can't take the risk of reloading or fixing the disabling.
The number of steps necessary to create this optic is more beyond credulity than the straight (double-blind) story of partial security fail and partial shooter fail.
My view is that the white hats knew that assassination risk was nonzero but have a control narrative ready where Trump's double comes out and claims it was the double that was killed, not him the "real" Trump (think The Prestige). But they didn't need that narrative this time around.
It may be factual that that's a survey report using a demographic trend to estimate 83%, among adults, with a margin of error. But yes it's fallacious and collectivist to say "Jews are pro-abortion" in most contexts, because it implies a collective view and not a majority view. People generally don't take it as meaning "Some Jews are pro-abortion" any more than when people say "Water bodies are wet". You could say "Jews are generally pro-abortion". Collectivism was foisted on us by such greats as Jew Leon Trotsky and Gentile Edward House.
Most people recognize that a true life-of-mother exception is the doctor's call as to life versus life, and is not a rejection of (my or anyone's) being pro-life. The two most pro-life obgyns in Congress, Ron Paul and Tom Coburn, both had to allow two or three babies to die because out of many thousands of deliveries they judged in each case the mother's life was truly at risk. You lumped these pro-life Orthodox Jews in so as to make your point, which was further collectivist thinking on your part.
I just denied coincidence, and affirmed demographic behavior and pattern recognition and consensus, meaning majority or representative activity. "Collective behavior" treats people not as people but as a herd, and does not mean majority activity to most people, it means activity attributable to a collective. I can say how Republicans think because they are an identifiable group of membership-based individuals and they have elected leadership and approved platforms; Republican individuals have consented to be represented by a group government. Jewish individuals have not consented to be represented by leaders as to individual political views (though they have as to religious dogma).
You refuse to explicate the verse about judging the innocent with the guilty. You refuse to define "Jewry" or "the Jews" (in sentences like "I criticize the Jews for legitimate reasons") because these are wax-nose language.
This is a basic comms fail. You may have lived long among people who speak this way, and I am challenging you with a different form of speech (and maybe it requires waking up from the illusion that collectivist language is not a satanic enemy trick). But how can I affirm "Jews are pro-abortion" when the context is likely to imply to some people "all Jews" instead of "the majority of Jews"? The statement is void for vagueness.
By not respecting me when I say these things, and putting other words in my mouth, you're doing the gaslighting. There is no realism in blaming the innocent for the guilt of others.
I'll grant my inference of "all" is logic-based. But what else does "The Jews" and "Jewry" and "Jewish Sacrament" mean? If it's the amorphous group of whichever Jews I include and whichever shabbat goyim and whichever I exclude, then it's meaningless, as I've said for years. It has no referent in reality.
I'll also grant you differ from u/Vlad_The_Impaler, who counts Messianics as true Jews and larpers. I apologize for implying you were fully taking his view though I see the language as still ambiguous, as I explain.
ALL PEOPLE "are only enemies of God and the human race (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16) insomuch as they reject Christ, push anti-Christ ideas and ideologies, persecute/undermine Christians, and defend bad Jewish behavior when people like me call it out." To focus on some of us sinners is the problem.
I have not objected to any evidenced criticism of individuals or corporations. I have not argued coincidence, I've agreed there is often-gross overrepresentation. When you say "collective Jewish Problem", though, you go over the line again, because you don't see how collectivist rhetoric (from satanists of all stripes) has led your mind to slip from a real entity to an imagined one. If the problem is religion, that can be sourced; if it's cultural education, that can be sourced; if it's crime, if it's DNA predilection, there are real matters to point to. But I will defend any race or religion against collectivist treatment. There can never be such a thing as a "collective Inuit Problem" nor is there for any other race or religion. When I see an individual imam speaking hatefully, I note that he and his flock are a piece of evidence; but they cannot speak for "the Arabs", and the power of the ahadith to speak for "the Arabs" also has limitations, and I respect those. For me to imagine a "collective Arab Problem" would be metaphorically murderous to innocent children.
Call me a useful idiot if you must: I serve one Master alone (I also volunteer for Scott Lively to keep accountable). Being steeped in Christian libertarianism I arrived here around J6 without realizing that my simple view, color-blindness as to collectives without ignorance of demographic trends as to individuals, would not be held by many here. If you find my views useful to some individual or group, name them. United States is an entity, Masonic Grand Lodges are each entities, other collectives have entity representation. I don't serve the United States, it is my servant; I have no connection with Masonic Grand Lodges or any secret society.
The competing view that tempts you and fully ensnares others is that some humans by birth or upbringing get an automatic restriction on having full human rights. When you say "Jewish Sacrament" you deny the Jews rights to speak for their own religion and you assert your rights to speak for them as an outsider; and that's just the problem you accuse the Jews of having, when you think they call you personally an idolator, which they don't.
If somebody could tell me an actual thing that "collective behavior" refers to, it could be criticized; but so far the only referent for that phrase is imagined groupings of individual behaviors. Trends are real and indicate predilections but cannot lead to judgment against a race. On ConPro the judgments against blacks are far more evident, and equally to be dismissed. For that, there's almost an entity: crime statistics objectively collected by public servants (police). But for "who is a Jew" when it comes to either crime or infiltration, I'm told to rely on anons' imaginations.
Now Swamp Rangers as an org is very interested in documenting and labeling swamp denizens who have crossed a boundary line of bad behavior. One problem we're currently discussing is how to keep a database balanced so as to not overwhelm it with biased content once opened to public contribution. Not easy. But we can certainly thank Conspiracies and ConPro for giving us plenty of examples of what to do and not to do.
It's a simple rule, just blame the individuals rather than the group. Abortion is a satanic ritual, but it's no more a Jewish ritual than it was a Christian ritual back when we were the ones accused of killing the babies.
There's no hatred here in carrying out simple rules. There's no favor of enemies. But there's no license to say "the Jews", meaning men, women, and children, are all enemies. Skil tried that, he actually held IIRC that Jewish minors were guilty for not leaving the faith. You are free, and u/Vlad_The_Impaler is free if he shows rulekeeping ability, to criticize any individual or corporation. But the community agreed based on Scored culture, no racism, and that's been an easy line to define and defend.
Preaching the uncomfortable truth never requires judging the innocent with the guilty, a Biblical proposition that predates the Jews. Funny how you two never respond to that uncomfortable truth. Perhaps "I tried".
I wouldn't stay at peace with myself if I were consoling myself with that Chick tract meme, it wouldn't be enough because I'd be racking myself to see if I could've spoken the uncomfortable truth more winsomely and effectively.
You charge gaslighting; point to the evidence. I've just given evidence that your characterization is off, you should be able to do the same with me.
We're flat not accepting the proposition that abortion is a sacrament of Judaism, unless this is sourced from Jewish religious leaders and not from speculation. If he had said sacrament of satanism he would've gotten lots of faves.
When you point out individual Jews connected with abortion you are accepted. When you unaccountably tie it to seven other anti-Semitic links off-topic you are not. We can only keep or delete whole comments. All the same, I kept your paragraph about Jews connected with abortion by copying it into my own comment.
You were not banned for naming the Jew. You were banned for not doing it for real. You were not banned for naming the JPF, or Gregory Pincus (you misnamed him "George" BTW). You were banned for attributing this behavior to "Jews" in general, who are a mix of innocent and guilty, and for breaking about a dozen other rules. You were told this many many times.
You can "go after" satanic actors without blaming their race. I'd love to discuss eschatology and other topics with you sometime when you're not doing it in all caps.
I won't address all your logic fails and also reserve the right not to respond to your misstatements about the mods and the forum. You cannot guarantee me a civil discussion from day to day so I can only hope and pray for entrees. We did well two days ago.
With the number of cameras and the number of bullets, not that surprising! But unless someone runs it on a heat map and finds it suspect, it appears we must take it as real because of its instant production. Even Obama's long-form birth certificate took all weekend to fake. God has ways of giving the glory to himself alone.
Add: Last night I considered that even if Trump's initial blood could be faked, I see no way the white hats would allow anyone of their own premeditatedly to serve as the shooter's corpse, and I see no way they could trust anyone else to perform the activity demanded. Even as a skeptic searching for alternate conclusions I remain unable to avoid the only conclusion being the shooter had intent to kill.
Add: The theory could be falsified if there were evidence the photos of the dead shooter were taken on a different day than the 13th. I'm keeping alert to any analyses of anomalies in photos. Similarly, may Comperatore rest in peace, but I'm certain his family would be civilly open to detailed questioning to ascertain their narrative is fully confirmed, because no cameras were on Corey when he was hit.
The AP photo sequence shows blood right after Trump touches his ear, and shows his hand empty before the shot, otherwise I'd be in more agreement with you.
The Exodus was 1539 BC and the arrival in the Promised Land was 1499 BC, with Joshua's allotment of the land in 1493-1492. The arguers for a later date "3200 years ago" (here also "1407-1406 BC", which is contradictory) are phony, relying primarily on one misdate of the name "Ramses". Akhenaten (1340s) is similarly too late but is suspected due to the false dating argument. The Pharaoh of the Exodus was Apophis (15th Dynasty).
The "LMLK" inscription is dated to 701 BC, which is a guess because I have Hezekiah reigning 729-686, with his illness and 15-year extension in 701, but that's not a reason to date remains to that year as if precisely. Here are pictures of clearer such seals. In Zanoah, "LMLK" (king's) is the upper inscription, the lower is "ZP" (Ziph), the local district.
There is no evidence given in the links of finds dating back to 1493 BC (they only go to "Late Iron"), though the Bible's evidence that Israel began to occupy Zanoah in 1493 is its own testimony. The headline-writer is compressing too many things at once.
Since there is no immediate comment findable on the circle and bird symbol other than its connection with royalty, it's reasonable to connect it to the winged sun in Egypt. In the Bible, the wings of the sun mean its rays (the sun of righteousness has healing in its wings), and this is taken as a symbol of the Creator free from its Egyptian context. There is evidence the winged sun is prediluvian, so Noah must have accepted it as a usable symbol for it to have continued.
"Nibiru" or "crossover", an Akkadian word that looks to me to be cognate with "Hebrew", represents a star other than the sun, so I don't make that a match with the winged-sun motif.
In Hunt for Red October Ryan guesses correctly which of two directions the sub will turn. Here Brandon guesses correctly which ear would be hit: not in the transcript but in his hand motions. A 50/50 guess is the best confirm!
It's possible Crooks was a scapegoat, but early reports are making this very very hard to fake safely.
The AP photo series shows (1) the bullet in flight while Trump's hand is open and empty, (2) Trump's hand to his ear, (3) Trump staring at his bloody hand. Surprisingly hard to fake. Penn & Teller would turn this job down.
The blood on the bleachers and the doctor's T-shirt is not easy to fake, but it's within realm of possibility.
4chan has someone claiming to be one of these two men saying he was not permitted to fire for 3 minutes, he fired after the shots began, and he was fired for it. That may be larping but it shows understanding RoE is essential and the public will want a statement soon about that.
This don't help much, because if your primary evidence of oddity is said by some to be an enlarged head, well, all human fetuses have enlarged heads. She has nine or ten ribs (pairs), well, that might indicate why she may have been miscarried. She ain't "a couple decades old", she was found in 2003 by Oscar Munoz; the DNA supports the theory of genetic mutation, indicates Chilean origin, and gives a date of under 500 years old. The fact that she may be recent enough to have traceable relatives is a rights issue, but there is no proof indicating an excessively recent date.
The initial argument that the skeleton had the knee plates of a 7-year-old was debunked in favor of the genetic evidence that progeria artificially aged the plates and this was a miscarriage.
So, great find. I have both a credulous and a skeptical side. The skeptical says I don't have indications that elongated heads are indeed unnatural, and the credulous suspects that there are more oblong heads walking among us than we realize.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/health/atacama-skeleton-mystery/index.html
Bookmarking under abnormal parietal bones and/or Wormian bones.
You sure have a strange view of war. Why don't you publish a link or two to these atrocities so that I can join your armchair judgment? You seem to assume an awful lot about other people, which is probably why you're not passing reading comprehension either. Thanks for the links, as I said, anytime.
I don't think it's doxing to say I'm "unvaccinated" in the new sense. I've said enough here about my sovereign American citizenship that I shouldn't be confused with someone allowing any other rule than Jesus's.
When you find a Christian who agrees with (that Jew) St. Paul on being a love-slave of (that Jew) Jesus and on doing everything he can to save some (of those Jews) by giving them knowledge of Jesus, you should've had enough Bible not to be surprised.
We don't get to say Jews have always acted like demons because the perfect man, our God, came as a Jew.
We can get specific about killing millions, if we admit that Christians and atheists have done the same thing.
I don't defend demons or demonic activity. I don't have enough info on Gaza to judge war decisions; those can only be judged with significant context. I'm not going to try to pick out what you mean out of a poster's profile.
I'm on the record calling out any sin equally. Someone posted that a Jew spit on a Christian and the police did nothing; well, that's bad law, but it's still the law there, if I understand. Should I protest that law any more than writing a sentence about it? I think I have more important things to do, such as to dissuade racism by promoting a view of not judging the innocent with the guilty.
You have given no evidence of cuckoldry, you merely object that I don't criticize them as much as you do. I criticized them a whole lot on ConPro but that wasn't enough so they nuked all my critical research; so it suggests that, in some minds, nothing can save one from false charges. Oh wait, didn't I tell you I would avoid responding to ad hominems?
Funny that you appeal to the liberal Jew to tell you what the Orthodox Jews are doing. Of course a liberal Jew would agree with the ConPro crowd, they both want to propagate their own and the Orthodox Jews are not like them. Racism is the same everywhere, fren, and when I came here 3 years ago I laid down my definition of it and haven't had to change it once. Our praying one for another is sufficient.
That's an excuse that can faultily prove anything. If you want to claim something is hidden, you must show valid evidence from which the possibility is inferable. Nobody argues successfully that the opponent says all kinds of evil things in secret. I already told you that the primary things hidden in the Talmud are individual words and things already publicly challenged by the Inquisition. They also have no obligation to republish individual opinions that are hundreds of years old and that they've already moved beyond but August Rohling hasn't. All my arguments are on evidence, the distorters' arguments are often not.
Actually, Christians were accused of the blood libel before Jews were, and that's because they freely told people that they were drinking Jesus's blood. It stuck better with Jews, and there is some evidence that satanism works well with them, but it also stuck with Roma ("Gypsies") and other European groups accused of witchcraft. Have you noticed how many pedophilia arrests we're making lately of Gentiles?
Most Jews are nonreligious and try not to consider Jesus at all, or give unthinking acceptance to the cultural judgment. Theologically, the teaching (Maimonides) is that Jesus is not the Messiah because he hasn't done it all yet. Those few that I've spoken of (1%) do count him an impostor, but even Marching to Zion couldn't find a rabbi that would defame Jesus outright, the closest the rabbis would say was "maybe" he's an impostor.
I've spent a very long time learning about Jews, no phase. This enables me to speak to even those who do not believe in Jesus because I can establish common ground on many other points, which is the same thing evangelists do with any other culture. When this is established, a time comes in a relationship when you can ask freely what the individual thinks about Jesus, and then provide more information in a Jewish context. This is the only way to evangelize, and evangelize we must according to Romans 11.
Jews who have accepted Jesus as Messiah, numbering about a million according to a Lifeway survey, do not consider themselves non-Jews. Your creating a special category for "little contact" shows that you don't want to leave the monolithic view that so informs your other opinions; but I think you've done enough research to realize you don't need to hold on to it.
Are you stressed out about Israeli TV for one minute after the way we treat Jews, blacks, and Muslims on Scored for years? This may be more rent-free than I thought.
Do you dare me to go to Chabad or the Conservative synagogue and strike up a conversation along any lines, and report back to you?
(4a) This is not about sexuality as OP might suggest alone, but more about review of how the Jew and the Gentile are different. When we remember that the person who proclaims the true God is considered to have joined the Jew, and the person who rejects the true God is considered to have left the Jews, regardless of birth race, it becomes clearer that only those under God's protection are those with all the blessings of being human. This context is often ignored in discussing the distinction.
(4b) See my comments on Sanhedrin 54b-55a; Sanhedrin 55b; Ketubot 11b (also covering Sanhedrin 69b); Avodah Zarah 36b-37a. I have not looked into Sotah 26b before; but it simply says that bestiality is not a category of adultery, not that bestiality is legitimate.
(4c) Much repeated from the same author. See my comments on Yevamot 59b; Ketubot 11b as to Sanhedrin 69b again; Sanhedrin 55b; Yevamot 57b; Yevamot 60b; Niddah 44b. I didn't get Yevamot 55b before; on first glance this appears to be another categorization issue, namely that necrophilia does not count as adultery. Necrophilia is instead punishable as contact with a corpse, which renders impurity, but it was not considered a capital crime like adultery. Your specific reference to marrying a woman who had intercourse with an animal is Yevamot 59b, and, as I pointed out, this was a provision of mercy for a specific young girl of Hitlu who had been attacked sexually by a dog. Thereby it was presumed that such an act was unintentional as a default view, but if there was evidence it was intentional it would be punished as bestiality and not cleared to the priesthood.
In short, your concerns about apparent immorality are generally echoes of the objections of others who did not understand the Talmudic context and who did not read it like a specialized wiki directory where relevant information is not nearby or readily found without memorization. When one is responsible for any massive law code, one generally must know where to find things even though they are vastly separated, or else one will be confused by the missing context; this is absolutely true of the US Code. Most sentences that seem to allow immorality when taken alone are actually about dealing with collateral issues of the immorality, which has been dealt with more summarily in a different passage. There are a few oddities that are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, such as marital anal sex and necrophilia, and the Talmud follows this by not ruling out of hand that these things are necessarily punishable in themselves, but that they are to be judged by analogy instead; and the Christians make the same type of judgment about such matters outside the specific explicit text.
You conclude with another reference to the obfuscation of Sabbath law, with mention of superstition in the Talmud, and with mention of the Zohar, which is a late book teaching a specific mystical mindset among some Jews. Each of these can be given their own criticism generically as you point out. These things being worthy of some criticism, such as things explicitly in the Talmud that I've alluded to, does not mean that we get to lump everything together as evil or to misquote or to judge beyond what is written. Each teaching must be taken on its own and its context realized. The conclusion would be that the Talmud has many things that are culturally challenging, and some that indicate bias or incompletion in development of morals, but nothing that demonstrates that the religion itself is guilty of teaching evil. Rather, the religion is to be judged, in each person who upholds it, by whether that person knows God and submits to his true Messianic plan (now revealed in Jesus). The Talmud will not tell us the state of any man's soul. Thank you for permitting my review.
I think that's zero to several decimals. The closest I could come would be that the white hats know there's a risk of someone getting the rifle in line (as indicated by former assassination attempts) but they have a backup plan for that and they anticipate (correctly so far) that its actual odds are quite low. I see no scenario in which Trump's team would knowingly permit a rifle in unvetted hands in line of sight. I do see potential for certain aspects to be anticipated but nobody can put together a big picture yet, and so we can say every scenario has holes in it.
He says his ear is missing a piece, he has a full bandage over it now in public, so we'll see what new look he goes for.
I previously said Penn & Teller would've turned down this gig. They say "No permanent damage."