We now have evidence that this photo had been tampered with. We already knew that this photo can’t be from the second shot as Trump has his right hand on his ear when we hear the supersonic shockwave of the second shot. Also, we don’t see any trace of blood on Trump’s hand whereas we do see traces of blood on Doug Mills’ third photo (which has likely been tampered with as well anyway). However, this photo doesn’t appear to be from the first shot either because when we hear the supersonic shockwave from the first shot Trump still has his right hand on the stand! In short, this photo can’t be from any of the shots and we must conclude that it had been tampered with (which I had hypothesized from the beginning).

What does this all mean?

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. See the screenshots taken during the first supersonic wave and second supersonic wave. You can verify for yourself with the live footage here: youtu.be/JW3X-nmHKmM

First supersonic shockwave (Trump’s hand on the stand):

Second supersonic shockwave (Trump’s hand on his ear):

Doug Mills bullet photo (hand in the air):

This is deductive reasoning unless you want to contest the law of physics. Are you suggesting we have another case of “magic bullet” in which the bullet suddenly changed its direction mid-air?

The bullet goes from left to right and has a descending trajectory so not inconsistent with the official story. That said, based on this trajectory I don’t see how the bullet could have grazed the upper part of Trump’s ear. Maybe that’s why the FBI director refused to state that Trump got it by a bullet in front of the Committee.

I gave up on Reddit, the best is to be active and grow alternatives like monero.town

After taking a closer look, some pictures of Trump shows that he had some blood on his right hand. Not that it’s all over but that’s certainly how he could have perceived it. That said the recount of the event is clearly scripted as he describes scenes he couldn’t have seen.

Thanks for the moralistic discourse but I’m good. You seem to be assuming a lot of things about me. It’s true that being aware of some dark realities of this world can make an individual fell into extreme paranoia hence it’s important to always exercise critical thinking when doing this type of research. I could also go on the register of the pathos and tell you how about people who died because they blindly trust the official narrative but I won’t go there.

Trump recounts the event: “And moved my right hand to my ear, brought it down. My hand was covered in blood. Just absolutely blood all over the place”.

As per the video footage when Trump gets up, there is absolutely not a drop of blood on his hands. False memory, gross inconsistency in the narrative or did the secret service took the time to clean his hand?

What’s interesting is that a lot of the elements recounted by Trump are not from his perspective at the time of the event. For instance, he says that as he was still on the ground, the crowd was pointing at the shooter and people could see all the blood. This doesn’t seem like an authentic recount of the scene by him. Someone else wrote this script for him, but the deep state should be careful not hiring interns next time.

See at 2:25:

https://youtu.be/4MVep85ykg4

Magicians use the power of attention and misdirection to successfully execute their magic tricks.

Have you noticed how Trump said “take a look” five times to direct the attention of the public to the chart just before the shots started?

Maybe this explains why we still don’t have any footage from crowd that was behind Trump. Maybe all eyes were focused on the chart. That’s too bad because it may have help us settling the question as to whether or not a bullet grazed Trump’s ear.

An interesting analysis on the Trump assassination. The author claims that there were three shooters. Crooks on the roof, one on the water tower and one somewhere in the woods. The author uses his analysis to support the thesis that it was a failed assassination attempt. According to him, Crooks’ bullets couldn’t have grazed Trump’s ear (based on the angle). The shooter on the water tower would have been the one responsible to graze Trumps’ ear while the third shooter wasn’t aiming at Trump but at the SS sniper instead. However, this third shooter missed and hit people in the bleachers instead. While all of this is possible it still doesn’t exclude the possibility that none of these shooters aimed at Trump. It’s also curious why one shooter would have aimed at one SS sniper while more SS snipers were positioned at other locations. Also it would mean that all three shooters missed their target. Another question is that if we had three shooters, and only one (or maybe two) got neutralized, why would the third shooter not go for another assassination attempt as Trump was walked to his car? The plot thicken but we still don’t have a definitive answer on whether it was a false flag or a real attempt.

https://rumble.com/v57dfwl-brave-tv-ep-1821-john-cullen-breaking-open-the-trump-assassination-attempt-.html

If we were living in a world of no conspiracy and didn’t have evidence that Trump is to some extent owned by deep state actors, you would have a point. But how to not ask for a high level of evidence when we’ve seen in recent years many horrible but proven false flags/conspiracies? As far as I can tell, there is so far no evidence that this event could not have been staged hence, I’m not going to change years of research leading to my understanding that:

1. This type of false flag could absolutely have taken place
2. Trump is owned by many elements of the deep state and the narrative that the deep state is after him doesn’t make a lot of sense

Of course those who haven’t realized point 1 and 2 will go for the most obvious explanation which is that this was a failed assassination attempt.

More info on this photo:

Did you know that the photo of the bullet in the air behind Trump was taken by Doug Mills, the same photographer who took the photo of Bush in a classroom when being notified that the 9/11 attacks just happened? It seems that this renowned journalist is often at the right time in random places just before major historical events unfold. He’s a lucky one.

I don’t know if this photo is real or had been modified or even taken at an earlier day in a controlled environnement but it’s an interesting coincidence.

Also, it’s unclear to me if the trajectory of the bullet which seems mostly parallel to the ground is a realistic trajectory for a shoot fired from an elevated vantage point.

Also, we still haven’t seen a detailed animation showing the trajectory of the bullets based on the shooter’s position and Trump. How likely it is that those would have been lost bullet killing and injuring spectators?

Hard to tell without a precise animation but intuitively I would think that lost bullets would have been more likely to hit the ground around Trump than the crowd by the simple fact that the shooter was at an elevated position in comparison to Trump.

Good to know about ATP. I don’t use it much (I can’t even create an account).

But what definitive evidence do we have here? Based on the testimonies it’s difficult to believe that the shooter acted without the support of part of the chain of command within the Secret Service, so already a conspiracy is a likely scenario. Then, come the question of which definitive proofs do we have that the shooter aimed at Trump? We only have a photo published by a mockingbird media. It’s quite weak. On top of this, we now have some elements pointing out that the alignment of Trump, the shooter and the victim are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the victim would have been killed as a result of a lost bullet. IMO, this is the canary in the coal mine that needs further investigation.

I’m not an expert in image forensic so I will refrain to conclude anything based on this image which could have either been modified or presenting a misleading perspective (the bullet could be farther from Trump than we assume) or even taken on a different day in a secured environment. It certainly wouldn’t be the most difficult element to fake in order to mislead the public. And keep in mind it was published by the mockingbird New York Times paper. Can you definitively trust this source for not tampering with a photo? I don’t think so. That said I agree that it’s not an element that we should discount, I just don’t have the expertise to interpret it and considering the multiple ways it could be tampered with, I don’t think this element could change the conclusions one way or the other.

Thanks man. I’ve been lurking the forum for a while.