A number of commenters seem to place implicit faith in Chris Martenson’s video purporting to demonstrate conclusively that there was more than one shooter shooting at Trump.
Any sonic analysis based on, or interpolating, cellphone 'evidence' should surely be discounted entirely. The static podium mic and any other similar device is inherently more trustworthy. Why? The name mostly used for cellphones in UK is 'mobile phone' - and there's your answer. That the orientation of the cellphone mic changed radically during the recording makes that soundtrack trash.
Add me to the list of people bewildered that as many as three armed security guys (any number > 0 in fact) could be serving any useful non-nefarious purpose inside the building that the shooter had climbed up on to. As referenced in another comment, perhaps not explicitly, these guys were there to ensure that the putative assassin did not get away alive.
In fact, the guys who made sure the assassin didn't get away were the two sniper teams on the roofs behind Trump, not the guys at the windows. My supposition is that the guys in the building were, amateurishly, occupying an overlook of the crowd (but not such a good line on Trump) while ignoring the big threat to Trump above them. Being inside the building, they probably would not have been in a good position to interdict the assassin had he tried to make a getaway, and might have had trouble discerning the location/direction of the shots.
I could easily have swallowed whole a troll posting but have seen images of a two-storey block overlooking the single storey structure where Crookes was based. Technically the same building (a glass works of some kind). But anyhow the whole narrative is so much smoke and mirrors.
I'm not saying the whole narrative isn't smoke and mirrors. I'm saying sorting things out isn't easy. Especially because crucial information is being hidden from the public at this point. For example:
 “This video was taken from one of the windows the *Secret Service* had access to, overlooking the entire roof.
Makes you wonder how on earth they allowed the shooter to access the roof, let alone crawl up it & fire several shots.”
— Rep Eli Crane
They let it happen…"
What I have heard is that the personnel in that two story bldg. were NOT SS but were locals, and that these personnel were not part of a sniper team. My understanding is that that location (the 2 story bldg) was being used as some sort of command center for the locals. I doubt that the locals could have been involved in anything nefarious--way too complicated, multiple jurisdictions, etc. That, of course, leads to two questions: 1) could the locals have been amateurish or even stupid? and 2) WHY did SS not have personnel in/on either bldg? Or on the water tower, for that matter?
The key, the answer, to all the questions is in the SS command line. All accounts indicate that they had access to the necessary information, no matter how inadequate the security setup was. The assassination could and should have been stopped and would have been--BUT FOR decisions that were made at the top, in the command center.
There appears to be solid video from John Cullen that challenges Larry Johnson’s claim that all the victims were within the margin of error of Crooks’ line of fire. Watch this video from the 53 min mark to about the 75 min mark. It appears to show that at least 5 people along the top row of the bleachers to Trump’s left were hit almost simultaneously with the first shot.
Stick with the video and watch it carefully. Rewind back and forth if necessary. Keep watching until you see what is happening with each person in the video as the narrator explains it. You can hear Trump still speaking as the first crack of gunfire occurs, which means this must be consistent with the first shot. All the people react to this first crack, but all 5 of them were not in Crooks line of fire. They were spread out all across the top row of the bleachers. Ergo, this shot appears to have come from a different direction.
As I watched it, I was thinking they just reacted to the gunfire, but the movements were too fast and the movements didn’t all involved bodily motions. One woman appears to have something almost rip the purse off her shoulder, and another man seems to have something rip his shirt in one direction. When you get to the end of this section of video, the narrator concludes from the sequencing that two shots occurred almost simultaneously from two directions.
This video last more than 2.5 hours, and goes in some very disturbing directions. I was in grade school during the JFK assassination, and I’m getting that sense all over again. Have a look at this video. What do you think? Am I crazy?
Can anyone answer the question that’s making me a little crazy. :) Why were snipers inside of the building instead of on the roof of the building like the other snipers? Who were they going to shoot from the window? - Someone on the ground? Also, why has no one asked this question. Is it normal operating procedure? Makes no sense to me but I’m not security expert.
Sorry, that made no sense to me, either--not in the circs. Being inside looking out through the window drastically narrows your vision as compared too full field of view up top. Plus, their attention would perforce be directed toward the stage, when it should have been rotating around the entire area. That puzzled me, too.
Just heard on radio (source investigative reporter) that reason for the delay in taking out perp was there was suppose to be snipers on that roof and they were trying to verify who it was before firing. Hope someone asks Cheatle that question today.
I was getting frustrated with the "Trump would be dead" argument against the multiple shooter theories.
But this article finally addresses the audio argument and does so in convincing manner, so thanks so much for sharing.
I haven't seen critique of the bullet path vector arguments, but however those are addressed I don't think the audio files support shooters on the water tower and in the woods.
I_Am_John Cullen on X is all over this, including a Rumble 1 hour documentary. He also zooms in on people shot by bullets coming from different trajectory as Crooks. There’s so much more…including grainy but ‘curious’ figure emerging from the tower shooting.
Who let trump take the stage and then not pull him down? That seems to be the critical decision that made this attempt successful. (Only that lucky head turn caused the failure; it was fundamentally successful--like a super bowl game winning fg attempt hitting a bird)
I was thinking about writing a comment on your articles of Friday and Saturday, to offer a consideration for Crooks not being the actual assassin. Besides the early year high school photograph that is published for identification purposes, this young guy at 20 would most likely be too naive to recognize deception by seasoned practitioners of deception, and those who can masterfully steer others to do evil by means of stroking their egos towards pathways that will take them to their ambitious dreams-come-true. I think Crooks was susceptible to being manipulated by people of that kind, with power-hungry plans that Crooks would not be informed of.
Having read, before, somewhere, that there were 4 sniper teams at the rally, may not be true. But today, Benjamin Wetmore reports a podcast discussion with an engineer who rationally and mathematically comes to the conclusion that there was a presidential assassin who shot Trump, but it wasn't Crooks. Here is that article and video embedded---
Yeah, rumor coming out of Pa now that Crooks was approached at shooting range and asked to be part of the protection team. The videos where he is wandering around outside of and peering into the venue happened because he was unsure of where he was supposed to be and he was looking for someone to direct him to his final destination.
Jeffrey Prather mentioned that there are three rings of protection as a standard, with the SS operating the inner ring (personal guards) and outer ring (snipers) while local law enforces the intermediate ring (where the shooter was). He explains that as the reason why the snipers weren’t focused on the shooter.
It’s interesting that the focus has been on the SS while very little is being talked about who was responsible from the local laws side.
NYT: Secret Service did not assign anyone to watch the warehouses just 140 yards north of where Trump was speaking.
Then as Trump spoke, the Secret Service became “frantic” — aware that something was wrong at those warehouses — but left Trump on stage. pic.twitter.com/1g3l9U9cVe
— Gregg Re (@gregg_re) July 21, 2024
The Left attacked @dbongino for telling us in real time that the Secret Service spokesman was lying.
Agents charged with protecting the former president requested magnetometers and more agents to screen attendees at sporting events and other large public gatherings Trump attended, as well as additional snipers and specialty teams at other outdoor events, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive security discussions. The requests, which have not been previously reported, were sometimes denied by senior officials at the agency, who cited various reasons, including a lack of resources at an agency that has long struggled with staffing shortages, they said.
Those rejections — in response to requests that were several times made in writing — led to long-standing tensions that pitted Trump, his top aides and his security detail against Secret Service leadership, as Trump advisers privately fretted that the vaunted security agency was not doing enough to protect the former president.
The Secret Service, after initially denying turning down requests for additional security, is now acknowledging some may have been rejected. The revelation comes as agency veterans say the organization has been forced to make difficult decisions amid competing demands, a growing list of protectees and limited funding. -WaPo
Any event which justifies Secret Service protection detail ought to be, and I assume is, rapidly risk-assessed and if there are competing demands those should be weighed up. A late-breaking request should not take precedence without very good cause.
Visiting dignitaries, and the term makes me nauseous seeing as we are including people like Satanyahu, should be rejected as a matter of course.
Your Secret Service is funded by USA and seeks to protect Americans. Visitors can bring their own experienced delegations, including security, and ensure that the staff are throughly familiar with local regs.
As ML says, protecting puppets like Elensky ought to be totally outside of the scope of SS role.
In the long video with LJ and Cunningham, former SS, that is addressed. Trump should have had priority because, among other things, he was at greatest risk.
Any sonic analysis based on, or interpolating, cellphone 'evidence' should surely be discounted entirely. The static podium mic and any other similar device is inherently more trustworthy. Why? The name mostly used for cellphones in UK is 'mobile phone' - and there's your answer. That the orientation of the cellphone mic changed radically during the recording makes that soundtrack trash.
Add me to the list of people bewildered that as many as three armed security guys (any number > 0 in fact) could be serving any useful non-nefarious purpose inside the building that the shooter had climbed up on to. As referenced in another comment, perhaps not explicitly, these guys were there to ensure that the putative assassin did not get away alive.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2nd-floor-snipers-1.jpg
In fact, the guys who made sure the assassin didn't get away were the two sniper teams on the roofs behind Trump, not the guys at the windows. My supposition is that the guys in the building were, amateurishly, occupying an overlook of the crowd (but not such a good line on Trump) while ignoring the big threat to Trump above them. Being inside the building, they probably would not have been in a good position to interdict the assassin had he tried to make a getaway, and might have had trouble discerning the location/direction of the shots.
I could easily have swallowed whole a troll posting but have seen images of a two-storey block overlooking the single storey structure where Crookes was based. Technically the same building (a glass works of some kind). But anyhow the whole narrative is so much smoke and mirrors.
I'm not saying the whole narrative isn't smoke and mirrors. I'm saying sorting things out isn't easy. Especially because crucial information is being hidden from the public at this point. For example:
https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1815479673473679411
"Lord Bebo @MyLordBebo
 “This video was taken from one of the windows the *Secret Service* had access to, overlooking the entire roof.
Makes you wonder how on earth they allowed the shooter to access the roof, let alone crawl up it & fire several shots.”
— Rep Eli Crane
They let it happen…"
What I have heard is that the personnel in that two story bldg. were NOT SS but were locals, and that these personnel were not part of a sniper team. My understanding is that that location (the 2 story bldg) was being used as some sort of command center for the locals. I doubt that the locals could have been involved in anything nefarious--way too complicated, multiple jurisdictions, etc. That, of course, leads to two questions: 1) could the locals have been amateurish or even stupid? and 2) WHY did SS not have personnel in/on either bldg? Or on the water tower, for that matter?
The key, the answer, to all the questions is in the SS command line. All accounts indicate that they had access to the necessary information, no matter how inadequate the security setup was. The assassination could and should have been stopped and would have been--BUT FOR decisions that were made at the top, in the command center.
There appears to be solid video from John Cullen that challenges Larry Johnson’s claim that all the victims were within the margin of error of Crooks’ line of fire. Watch this video from the 53 min mark to about the 75 min mark. It appears to show that at least 5 people along the top row of the bleachers to Trump’s left were hit almost simultaneously with the first shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hKuo2qW6uE
Stick with the video and watch it carefully. Rewind back and forth if necessary. Keep watching until you see what is happening with each person in the video as the narrator explains it. You can hear Trump still speaking as the first crack of gunfire occurs, which means this must be consistent with the first shot. All the people react to this first crack, but all 5 of them were not in Crooks line of fire. They were spread out all across the top row of the bleachers. Ergo, this shot appears to have come from a different direction.
As I watched it, I was thinking they just reacted to the gunfire, but the movements were too fast and the movements didn’t all involved bodily motions. One woman appears to have something almost rip the purse off her shoulder, and another man seems to have something rip his shirt in one direction. When you get to the end of this section of video, the narrator concludes from the sequencing that two shots occurred almost simultaneously from two directions.
This video last more than 2.5 hours, and goes in some very disturbing directions. I was in grade school during the JFK assassination, and I’m getting that sense all over again. Have a look at this video. What do you think? Am I crazy?
Can anyone answer the question that’s making me a little crazy. :) Why were snipers inside of the building instead of on the roof of the building like the other snipers? Who were they going to shoot from the window? - Someone on the ground? Also, why has no one asked this question. Is it normal operating procedure? Makes no sense to me but I’m not security expert.
Sorry, that made no sense to me, either--not in the circs. Being inside looking out through the window drastically narrows your vision as compared too full field of view up top. Plus, their attention would perforce be directed toward the stage, when it should have been rotating around the entire area. That puzzled me, too.
Just heard on radio (source investigative reporter) that reason for the delay in taking out perp was there was suppose to be snipers on that roof and they were trying to verify who it was before firing. Hope someone asks Cheatle that question today.
I was getting frustrated with the "Trump would be dead" argument against the multiple shooter theories.
But this article finally addresses the audio argument and does so in convincing manner, so thanks so much for sharing.
I haven't seen critique of the bullet path vector arguments, but however those are addressed I don't think the audio files support shooters on the water tower and in the woods.
I especially appreciate the timeline photo stitch. Fantastic graphic!
Here's a decent, short video on the 5 shots... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz8xdWeLtUc
I_Am_John Cullen on X is all over this, including a Rumble 1 hour documentary. He also zooms in on people shot by bullets coming from different trajectory as Crooks. There’s so much more…including grainy but ‘curious’ figure emerging from the tower shooting.
Who let trump take the stage and then not pull him down? That seems to be the critical decision that made this attempt successful. (Only that lucky head turn caused the failure; it was fundamentally successful--like a super bowl game winning fg attempt hitting a bird)
That would be strictly an SS decision.
Then let's pin it down to the specific agent/supervisor that made (or made not) the call
Good luck with that.
Hello Mr. Wauck,
I was thinking about writing a comment on your articles of Friday and Saturday, to offer a consideration for Crooks not being the actual assassin. Besides the early year high school photograph that is published for identification purposes, this young guy at 20 would most likely be too naive to recognize deception by seasoned practitioners of deception, and those who can masterfully steer others to do evil by means of stroking their egos towards pathways that will take them to their ambitious dreams-come-true. I think Crooks was susceptible to being manipulated by people of that kind, with power-hungry plans that Crooks would not be informed of.
Having read, before, somewhere, that there were 4 sniper teams at the rally, may not be true. But today, Benjamin Wetmore reports a podcast discussion with an engineer who rationally and mathematically comes to the conclusion that there was a presidential assassin who shot Trump, but it wasn't Crooks. Here is that article and video embedded---
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/photos-thomas-crooks-butler-rally-prove-snipers-were/
Now, I'll go and watch all of the links that you've posted in your article. Thank you very much for providing them.
Yeah, rumor coming out of Pa now that Crooks was approached at shooting range and asked to be part of the protection team. The videos where he is wandering around outside of and peering into the venue happened because he was unsure of where he was supposed to be and he was looking for someone to direct him to his final destination.
What was Trump's security like at the RNC? To me, it looked far more professional and comprehensive. Was it the SS or another outfit protecting him?
Definitely SS.
That's a relief. They were on a bit of a slippery slope at his last event!
Ouch, lol
Jeffrey Prather mentioned that there are three rings of protection as a standard, with the SS operating the inner ring (personal guards) and outer ring (snipers) while local law enforces the intermediate ring (where the shooter was). He explains that as the reason why the snipers weren’t focused on the shooter.
It’s interesting that the focus has been on the SS while very little is being talked about who was responsible from the local laws side.
Sorry Mark, I was typing what I thought was fresh news and didn’t realize that you had just posted this information.
And endorsed Kamala, now this will get really interesting very quickly.
OT, but important, RedState is reporting that Biden is withdrawing from the election, but will remain in office.
NYT: Secret Service did not assign anyone to watch the warehouses just 140 yards north of where Trump was speaking.
Then as Trump spoke, the Secret Service became “frantic” — aware that something was wrong at those warehouses — but left Trump on stage. pic.twitter.com/1g3l9U9cVe
— Gregg Re (@gregg_re) July 21, 2024
The Left attacked @dbongino for telling us in real time that the Secret Service spokesman was lying.
Turns out the Secret Service spokesman was lying.https://t.co/NNun0hw9Bw https://t.co/3yjUwcrtfy
— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) July 21, 2024
Agents charged with protecting the former president requested magnetometers and more agents to screen attendees at sporting events and other large public gatherings Trump attended, as well as additional snipers and specialty teams at other outdoor events, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive security discussions. The requests, which have not been previously reported, were sometimes denied by senior officials at the agency, who cited various reasons, including a lack of resources at an agency that has long struggled with staffing shortages, they said.
Those rejections — in response to requests that were several times made in writing — led to long-standing tensions that pitted Trump, his top aides and his security detail against Secret Service leadership, as Trump advisers privately fretted that the vaunted security agency was not doing enough to protect the former president.
The Secret Service, after initially denying turning down requests for additional security, is now acknowledging some may have been rejected. The revelation comes as agency veterans say the organization has been forced to make difficult decisions amid competing demands, a growing list of protectees and limited funding. -WaPo
Any event which justifies Secret Service protection detail ought to be, and I assume is, rapidly risk-assessed and if there are competing demands those should be weighed up. A late-breaking request should not take precedence without very good cause.
Visiting dignitaries, and the term makes me nauseous seeing as we are including people like Satanyahu, should be rejected as a matter of course.
Your Secret Service is funded by USA and seeks to protect Americans. Visitors can bring their own experienced delegations, including security, and ensure that the staff are throughly familiar with local regs.
As ML says, protecting puppets like Elensky ought to be totally outside of the scope of SS role.
In the long video with LJ and Cunningham, former SS, that is addressed. Trump should have had priority because, among other things, he was at greatest risk.
Meanwhile, I bet we’ve been beefing up Zelensky’s security detail, but that’s ok, right Wapo? Nothing’s too much for Kyiv!