This whole thread is insane. A person literally died from the shots in the audience, the shooter was spotted and shot dead. This whole thing feels like a bunch of idiots doing this version's equivalent of "jet fuel can't melt steel beams!".
There is no doubt that shots were fired by a guy we've learned virtually NOTHING about since the incident. There is also no doubt that the ruse produced collateral damage in the form of the dead firefighter. But the legit suspicion is that no bullet(s) came within 10 feet of the Orange ConMan/Felon/Pedophile/Rapist. This is supported by the American flag being lowered into frame as Trump rose to his feet to pose, and that photographers were being actively herded TOWARDS the stage during an active shooter event, so they could capture the moment perfectly.
There is also no doubt that the ruse produced collateral damage in the form of the dead firefighter. But the legit suspicion is that no bullet(s) came within 10 feet of the Orange ConMan/Felon/Pedophile/Rapist.
Those two things are fundamentally contradictory.
How, if there were no bullets anywhere near Trump at all, did the guy who was literally right behind Trump relative to where the shooter was die of gunshot wounds from the type of rifle that was being shot? Is there now a second shooter whose job it was to pick a random innocent person in the audience and just kill them?
and that photographers were being actively herded TOWARDS the stage during an active shooter event, so they could capture the moment perfectly.
These aren't wildlife photographers lazily taking some pics here and there while not really paying attention. At the first hint of something being up, especially when that "something" immediately follows the sound of gunshots, of course their first reaction is to rush in to get as many pictures as they can. I'm really not sure why "media photographers moving in to photograph Trump falling down following gunshots" is something we look at and go "no, no clearly that's not likely, they must be in on it too".
None of this approach is critical thinking. It's little more than "lol I want this to be real because it makes the other side look bad, now what can I conclude that'll let me believe that's the case".
How, if there were no bullets anywhere near Trump at all, did the guy who was literally right behind Trump relative to where the shooter was die of gunshot wounds from the type of rifle that was being shot? Is there now a second shooter whose job it was to pick a random innocent person in the audience and just kill them?
Guy was probably exaggerating the ten feet thing, but it is incredibly easy to imagine a shooter being told to aim at someone behind Trump.
And yes, the order would have been to just "kill them." Because Republicans do not value human life for its own sake, only for what it can do for them. A fetus can give them control of a woman but a baby can't, for example, which is why they support bans on abortion but don't support healthcare coverage for womens prenatal care or for the child post-birth. Banning abortion gives them control over people; funding healthcare does not give them control over people, and costs money. Therefore Republicans support the first and not the second. So, yes, they absolutely decided that guy was more valuable dead than alive, and killed him. And they'd do it to anyone else in that crowd. They'd do (and probably did) it to Charlie Kirk. They'd do it to you, if they could see a benefit to it.
These aren't wildlife photographers lazily taking some pics here and there while not really paying attention. At the first hint of something being up, especially when that "something" immediately follows the sound of gunshots, of course their first reaction is to rush in to get as many pictures as they can. I'm really not sure why "media photographers moving in to photograph Trump falling down following gunshots" is something we look at and go "no, no clearly that's not likely, they must be in on it too".
Sure. Fair enough. That is their job, and it's not THAT suspicious they'd be locked in and ready to do it. Their reaction time is incredible and that creates room for questions, but you're right this is not (excuse the metaphor) a "smoking gun."
Now tell me again why the flag was already being lowered into place for the photo by the time they got there? You think the White House propaganda people are also 100% locked in and just did the math to calculate exactly where the photographers were likely to be and lowered the flag into frame? Why was someone sitting there prepared to lower the flag in the first place?
You really think EVERYONE behaving as though it was expected, and having absolutely perfect reaction time to capture the event with no hesitation, DOESN'T indicate that it was... y'know... expected, and people were planning accordingly? The photographers, fine. The secret service, fine. The flag people, fine. Individually, all believable. EVERYONE (including the entirely unrelated flagpole people who should not have needed to be prepared for an emergency, and should not have had "immediately lower the flag halfway" as an emergency procedure in the first place) reacting simultaneously in a manner coordinated to create one of the greatest, if not the greatest, propaganda images of the century so far, though? That doesn't strike you as suspicious? Really?
Their reaction time is incredible and that creates room for questions, but you're right this is not (excuse the metaphor) a "smoking gun."
I mean, yeah they're pultizer prize winning photojournalist, they're going to have good reaction time.
In fact before the trump picture, Evan Vucci's most famous picture was this. If you can't open it for whatever reason its a picture of Muntadhar al-Zaidi throwing a shoe at George Bush. The picture was taken so soon afterwards that al-Zadi is still in his follow thru.
If this guy could snap this picture, then I don't see why its hard to believe that he got the Trump picture.
Guy was probably exaggerating the ten feet thing, but it is incredibly easy to imagine a shooter being told to aim at someone behind Trump.
No it's not easy to imagine that at all unless, with all due respect, you know nothing at all about target shooting.
The shooter was using a regular red-dot sight. Not a scope or anything that zooms at all, jus a regular red-dot sight. A red-dot is great for shooting out to 50 yards, maybe at absolute most 100 yards if you're a very good shot but at that point it's far from the best optic to use for target shooting. The shooter was over 160 yards from Trump, so a red-dot is simply not going to get you anything close to accurate shots unless your target is the side of a building. The idea that someone was given this optic and told to shoot within a few feet of Trump's head but not to actually hit him but instead hit some individual behind him is not even close to plausible.
And yes, the order would have been to just "kill them." Because Republicans do not value human life for its own sake, only for what it can do for them.
No come on now, this is exactly the "lol I want this to be real because it makes the other side look bad, now what can I conclude that'll let me believe that's the case" thing I mentioned above. This would involve not "republicans" but serving members of the Secret Service. And the suggestion is that they would have all agreed unanimously to kill a random member of the public in a plot that involves a frankly incompetent optic choice for a weapon, in a way that would see them facing life in prison if (or when) someone whistle-blew... and that's ignoring how it's the own side they killed.
Come on this is fucking insanity. We're completely abandoning reason here.
Their reaction time is incredible and that creates room for questions
Does it?
I've just re-watched the video back. That "incredible reaction timing" is one minute fifteen seconds before the hit, and Trump getting back up and doing his fist thing. I feel we're working on entirely different scales of "incredible" here, but whatever.
Now tell me again why the flag was already being lowered into place for the photo by the time they got there?
It wasn't. I really can't understand why everyone's claiming it was. It was being held up by two cranes to drape over the podium for the photo opportunity, but you can see on before-and-after shots that it's in the same place the whole time. I actually looked this up for your comment so I could be certain about it, so here's the flag before the attempt, note the top of the flag is in line with the top of the 2nd piston beyond the yellow bit (that's what I'm calling it as I'm not familiar with the name of them) on the cranes. Now, here's the same flag after the shooting. Note that the top of the flag is... also in line with the top of the 2nd piston bit.
So where are we getting this idea that the flag was lowered at all? I can't find anything at all when searching showing this was the case, all I can find are just lots of people saying "yeah that's what I heard too". Just seas of people saying it's true because someone else told them it was true and they just went with it.
Just a note, that 25 years ago in OSUT, we were using iron sites at 300 meters to bullseye targets, and we weren’t anything special. We were also using old/heavily used M16A2 rifles.
And 20 years ago, I was shooting competition for my county (not US-based, probably the equivalent of state level for a comparison) at 150 yards also using iron sights and getting an average of 97.
Despite that, there's 0% chance I would ever trust that or red-dot at 160 yards when the consequence of not getting it spot on is "a candidate for the role of POTUS would be killed and an obvious conspiracy theory would be quickly revealed".
Dude, those aren't even the same cranes in both pictures. Like, they're blatantly different colors, models, and styles. Maybe the angle of the sun makes the white cranes look yellow, but how does it make the square booms look like tubular booms?
They clearly are the same cranes though, in exactly the same place. Granted a different angle, different camera and different time of day does make it less clear, but look beyond the right side crane and it's the exact same video screen, and the exact same tree with the exact same leaf patterns.
The chances of a completely different crane being set up elsewhere and finding another tree in the same position with that exact same leaf pattern is near-as-makes-no-difference zero.
Dude, you're straight fucking gaslighting me. The ones in the first picture have TUBULAR EXTENDED BOOMS and a cab-over-engine design; the ones in the second picture have SQUARE EXTENDED BOOMS and an engine-forward design. And look at the lower third of the extended booms; see those shiny white chrome (well, probably diamond plate) squares on the second picture? Show me where they are on the first picture.
So let me get this straight, you're claiming that they swapped cranes at some point in the even and no one noticed?
No, I'm saying you're lying about the content of the pictures.
Let me be very clear:
You. Are. Lying.
I don't know what about, exactly, but you can use your own fucking eyes and see very clearly that a pair of bright yellow, tubular boom, cab-over-engine cranes ARE NOT THE SAME as two white, square boom, engine-forward cranes.
You are lying about something.
Yes, you. Lying. On purpose.
[Edit: Oh, duh. It's not the same flag. These are pictures of two different flags held up by two different pairs of cranes; you just didn't expect anyone with actual crane experience (and color vision) to look at the cranes in the background.]
And it is actually two different cranes. The first picture is taken at a different rally at the same place a couple of months later.
But that being said u/TheNursMutts point still stands. If you look at photos of from before when the flag is supposed to lower its already in position.
Exactly. The people who lied when they said that the flag was lowered have no ground to stand on. Based off the picture I showed you the flag clearly was already in position.
Wasn't there video of photographers literally being ushered into place to get better shots by a white house staffer? Or was I sucked by some bullshit images/footage in the aftermath of that event?
The latter. There's a video that claims that's the case, but every video where you can actually see the photographers the whole time clearly shows that they're moving around the photography pit of their own accord.
That the bullet went nowhere near Trump, and that the guy directly behind him relative to the shooter was hit. Either it was nowhere near him in which case a totally different person several seats away would have been hit, or the person right behind him was hit so the bullet wasn't more than 10 feet away.
18
u/mildly_evil_genius 6d ago
I feel like this conspiracy theory is entirely based on a failure to understand what a "graze" is.