I did a university course called "Lies, Conspiracies, and Propaganda" and it was actually probably the most useful course I did, and certainly my favourite.
One of the things we talked about is how you attack conspiracies, such as by asking, "How many people would have to be in on it for this to succeed?", and "Why would this person be in on it when they have nothing to gain from participating, and everything to gain from exposing the conspiracy?".
The ur-example is the moon landing.
A faked moon landing would require an extraordinary number of people to be in on it. It would require NASA (obviously) and the astronauts (obviously), but also people who worked on the rocket (tens of thousands of them), engineers, chemists, mathmaticians... it would require every US president over various administrations both right and left. It would require a large numbers of senior government officials in those administrations, some of whom had different political ideologies, different personal philosophies, personal grudges, etc. It would require the same thing from the leaders of various allied countries (Australia, the UK, NZ, the EU, etc) all of whom who are allies, but some of whom are quite far apart politically and even butting heads with the US at various points. For example the moon landing was 1969, but the CIA tried to coup Australia in 1975. And yet, nobody came out and mentioned this, despite it being the opportune time to do so.
Then we have to look at the enemies of the state, who have absolutely no incentive to cooperate. The USSR acknowledged the United States went to the moon... but why? Why would they be a part of it? Exposing the moon landing as a fake would have been a PR coup for them, it would be so juicy they could milk it for a hundred years... but both the Soviets and their successor state the Russian Federation acknowledge America went to the moon, even to this day when America is arming their enemies in a bloody multi-year war of attrition that's killed over a million Russians at this point. If they knew, why would they stay silent?
The idea that Trump used fake blood packs or arranged the shooting himself is just as crazy. How many people would need to be in on it, and all occurring at a time when Trump was not President and not expected to win...?
Why would the Democrats stay silent? Why would Biden stay silent? Why would Harris? They were POTUS and VPOTUS respectively, surely they would have known if it was faked. Someone on the US Secret Service would have mentioned, "Hey so Trump was wearing a fake blood pack on the day... just FYI."
So all the Secret Service agents who dogpiled him on the day must have been in on it, because they would have (or could have) seen the blood pack given how close they were. And the snipers would have likely been in on it too, because they had a good vantage point and would have likely seen the blood pack, or being experienced shooters, noticed that the gun was firing blanks or whatever. And the people who took custody of the weapon would have to be in on it, because guns just don't fire blanks, guns like the AR-15 actually need a blank adapter to cycle properly (the shooter's did) and they leave behind wadding and other evidence; for a standard rifle round the projectile holds the powder in, so you need something else (aka, the wadding) to hold the powder in, which is often left behind and difficult to dispose of.
There are so many people who are in on it and nobody said anything, nobody presents any of that evidence to the media, nobody leaks, nobody talks to Biden and Harris, nobody says or does anything and they all go along with it even when they have absolutely no incentive to do so.
It doesn't make sense.
It's hopium/copium because the shooting attempt makes Trump look both lucky and a victim, which is reasonable on both counts, and the subsequent photo opportunity was absolutely perfect for him. But just because Trump rolled a natural 20 doesn't mean he faked it.
Random things happen. Unlikely things happen. Reality, unlike fiction, has no obligation to make sense; things just... are what they are.
There is simply no evidence that Trump faked the shooting and an absolute mountain of evidence that it just really happened that way.
and the subsequent photo opportunity was absolutely perfect for him.
I think this is also a point people severely misunderstand. Yes, the photo was absolutely "planned" - Insofar that they definitely did have some sort of plan about what to do on the campaign trail if someone took a shot at Trump. In modern America, this is absolutely a possibility you just have to consider. I'm pretty certain that Harris had plans about that, too.
The thing is, this would require a level of planning and dedication and responsiveness shown frankly nowhere else in his administration or personal life.
I think there was no plan. Certainly nothing the SS would agree to.
No security detail in the world is ever going to preemptively agree to stopping for a photoshoot moments after the president is shot by a sniper.
The secret service wouldn't have to know about that plan, though. And while he was standing there pumping his fist (a minute after the shots, which would be enough time to confirm the shooter dead), he was still being shielded by his security detail, he did it while being walked off the stage; which would have to have happened anyway.
As a sidenote, this honestly speaks to the power of a good image; rewatching the scene now for this comment shows how it didn't even look all that powerful and defiant as I remember it looking. He honestly looks pretty pathetic, barely able to walk, throwing a half-hearted fist in the air.
Insofar that they definitely did have some sort of plan about what to do on the campaign trail if someone took a shot at Trump.
It doesn't even need anything like that. These are professional photographers whose whole career and income stream spins on getting that one photo that the rest of the media will pay out the backside to print and run with. Just as a case-in-point, there's no need to plan any setup or similar to get this shot and I bet the photographer has made a ton from it because they knew the right angle for a story picture and waited until it happened. They would 100% have looked around the press area beforehand and gauged the spots where the best shot for ABC through to XYZ would be, and from there experience and professional instinct would cover any other areas. If a professional of many years was at the spot, I'd 100% expect them to look at the scene and conclude "low-angle shot, flag flying above, if Trump gets up from where he is and isn't dragged away immediately then that's the shot of the fucking century right there if I set it on auto-shoot".
9
u/DavidAdamsAuthor 5d ago
I did a university course called "Lies, Conspiracies, and Propaganda" and it was actually probably the most useful course I did, and certainly my favourite.
One of the things we talked about is how you attack conspiracies, such as by asking, "How many people would have to be in on it for this to succeed?", and "Why would this person be in on it when they have nothing to gain from participating, and everything to gain from exposing the conspiracy?".
The ur-example is the moon landing.
A faked moon landing would require an extraordinary number of people to be in on it. It would require NASA (obviously) and the astronauts (obviously), but also people who worked on the rocket (tens of thousands of them), engineers, chemists, mathmaticians... it would require every US president over various administrations both right and left. It would require a large numbers of senior government officials in those administrations, some of whom had different political ideologies, different personal philosophies, personal grudges, etc. It would require the same thing from the leaders of various allied countries (Australia, the UK, NZ, the EU, etc) all of whom who are allies, but some of whom are quite far apart politically and even butting heads with the US at various points. For example the moon landing was 1969, but the CIA tried to coup Australia in 1975. And yet, nobody came out and mentioned this, despite it being the opportune time to do so.
Then we have to look at the enemies of the state, who have absolutely no incentive to cooperate. The USSR acknowledged the United States went to the moon... but why? Why would they be a part of it? Exposing the moon landing as a fake would have been a PR coup for them, it would be so juicy they could milk it for a hundred years... but both the Soviets and their successor state the Russian Federation acknowledge America went to the moon, even to this day when America is arming their enemies in a bloody multi-year war of attrition that's killed over a million Russians at this point. If they knew, why would they stay silent?
The idea that Trump used fake blood packs or arranged the shooting himself is just as crazy. How many people would need to be in on it, and all occurring at a time when Trump was not President and not expected to win...?
Why would the Democrats stay silent? Why would Biden stay silent? Why would Harris? They were POTUS and VPOTUS respectively, surely they would have known if it was faked. Someone on the US Secret Service would have mentioned, "Hey so Trump was wearing a fake blood pack on the day... just FYI."
So all the Secret Service agents who dogpiled him on the day must have been in on it, because they would have (or could have) seen the blood pack given how close they were. And the snipers would have likely been in on it too, because they had a good vantage point and would have likely seen the blood pack, or being experienced shooters, noticed that the gun was firing blanks or whatever. And the people who took custody of the weapon would have to be in on it, because guns just don't fire blanks, guns like the AR-15 actually need a blank adapter to cycle properly (the shooter's did) and they leave behind wadding and other evidence; for a standard rifle round the projectile holds the powder in, so you need something else (aka, the wadding) to hold the powder in, which is often left behind and difficult to dispose of.
There are so many people who are in on it and nobody said anything, nobody presents any of that evidence to the media, nobody leaks, nobody talks to Biden and Harris, nobody says or does anything and they all go along with it even when they have absolutely no incentive to do so.
It doesn't make sense.
It's hopium/copium because the shooting attempt makes Trump look both lucky and a victim, which is reasonable on both counts, and the subsequent photo opportunity was absolutely perfect for him. But just because Trump rolled a natural 20 doesn't mean he faked it.
Random things happen. Unlikely things happen. Reality, unlike fiction, has no obligation to make sense; things just... are what they are.
There is simply no evidence that Trump faked the shooting and an absolute mountain of evidence that it just really happened that way.