I don't think I would waste time asking USSS Director Cheattle any questions. I'd simply pass a House resolution calling on her to resign or be fired, and then subpoena the Assistant or Deputy Director for Operations and ask about 1) all the things that went wrong on July 13, and 2) all the requests for additional resources made by the Trump detail and how those were responded to.
Cheattle is "Dead Woman Walking" whose only interest at this point is self-interest.
Many statements being made here and all over the web are predicated on assumptions - stated and unstated and other mechanisms for controlling the debate. These mind controlling techniques feed off our personal biases which we're all loaded with and they're different for all of us depending on where we've come from (TV, lived experiences, schooling ...). The result is mass confusion, debate, heated argument, division and chaos. For those of us who reject the spiritual dimension there is no alternative than to peer into the chaos and pin our hopes on one side or another. For the others amongst us, we have the advantage of an additional layer of analysis and can go back to first principles. When asking the ultimate cui bono? the answer is clear. The Adversay. John 10:10 tells us the objectives of the Adversary: Steal. Kill. Destroy. So who's winning here? The answer is clear. The Adversary and those with allegiance to him or compromised by him. Fortunately we here don't have to find ourselves stuck pinning our hopes on a human solution that can only ultimately disappoint. Trust in Him who has the final say.
I have no confidence in L. Cunningham's view. This was obviously a set-up. There were two or more shooters. Sorry, but I believe L. Cunningham is being trotted out as misinformation on behalf of the deep, murderous, state.
L. Cunningham comes off as a seasoned professional analyzing the situation.
We needed people like that.
Yes, intuition screams setup, but that intuition isn't always right.
It's notable that he says he started simply reviewing the facts but now he's getting to the point where he can't ignore the possibility that it was a setup.
On the other hand, I was surprised to hear him say that the reaction inside the perimeter was satisfactory. There's a lot of negative attention on that, but maybe those pundits don't actually know what they're talking about.
Also surprised to hear him taking the Iran Intel seriously, good to hear LJ contradict that one.
I didn’t find the Larry Johnson/Cunningham interview any more informative than the many other ex-Secret Service/professional protective services experts who have been interviewed all over the web. They are all on the same page that this was beyond incompetence. I’m perfectly willing to believe that, and whatever that implies.
However, LJ’s dismissal of a second shooter was simply nonsense, pure speculation. There is no reason to assume a second shooter would have started a fire fight with other counter-snipers and LEOs just to get their target. As an aside, I saw one interview with Dan Bongino who said that the bunting on the stage would have been covering a bullet proof barrier. I don’t know from the angles whether that would have protected the Secret Service huddling over Trump or not, but that’s a consideration.
Also, it’s not guaranteed that the 8-10 shots were in the direction of a packed mass of humanity. All the overhead maps I’ve seen show that Crooks line of fire was in front of the bleachers, no into them. The people who were hit were at the corners of the bleachers, either to Trump’s right or left, which would have put them in front of or behind Trump in Crook’s line of fire. Depending on the elevation of the shooter and the angle to the stage, it’s very possible that some of the bullets landed a mile or more down range. I’m perfectly willing to be corrected on these observations if better information is available.
Where I strongly disagree with LJ is on the second shooter. I can’t remember if you have covered this video or if any of your commenters have linked to it, but here is an excellent video with the first round of acoustic analysis appearing on the web.
The analysis provides some very powerful evidence that different guns were firing at Trump from different positions, possibly different elevations, but similar distances. I’d be very interested in getting your take on this evidence.
The analysis uses the audio from Trump’s microphone and audio from a bystander video near Crooks position. The bystander audio clearly demonstrates two different weapon sounds. First there is a volley of 3 shots, and then there is volley of 6 shots with a distinctly different sound. You don’t even need the spectral data to hear the difference.
After the volley of 3 there is a pause of several seconds before the volley of 6. Then there is pause of about 10 seconds before the final shot, which supposedly killed Crooks. It’s clear that the shooting had stopped before the kill shot to Crooks, which negates LJ’s contention that the shooting stopped after the kill shot.
There is lot’s more about echoes, positions, and elevations in the video. I’m waiting to see what happens with the acoustic evidence, whether it gets scrubbed from the web, or debunked by “official” sources or what.
"People are making way too big a deal of the recordings of the shots fired during the six-seconds of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Until we have a full accounting of how many shots were fired by Secret Service and Police counter-snipers, you cannot just assume that it was a second shooter. The following video makes it very clear that the shots fired at Donald Trump hit him and three others. One of those shots proved fatal to a Pennsylvanian firefighter. If there was a second shooter trying to kill Trump, where are those victims? Real simple question.
"This video clearly shows that the grouping of the shots fired by Crooks align with his shooting position. I am not disputing the audio evidence, but the audio does not show who fired those shots. What we do know is the physical location of the victims. All are within the margin of error of shots fired from Crooks’ position. Deal with the facts."
I believe LJ is correct that *if a second shooter were shooting at Trump* then there would be more hits--it would make sense to shoot into the group of agents surrounding Trump or on top of Trump because you would have a good chance of those rounds getting through to Trump. If you had two people shooting at Trump you should have more hits.
The anomalous shots that Martenson says he identified need not have been fired *at Trump.* The most recent reports state that a local sniper also shot at Crooks but missed, while the SS sniper didn't miss. Already, then, you have 3 separate guns, but not necessarily any more than one shooting at Trump.
I have to assume that. It wouldn't make sense that one guy started shooting while the other waited to see what happened. They should have been synchronized to start shooting at the same instant--maximum likelihood of killing Trump, maximum confusion to security, maximum possibility of getting out alive if it came to that.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I’m going to play the devil’s advocate. Call me a conspiracy analyst if you want.
I’m not convinced by LJ’s latest video post that supposedly argues against two shooters. There are a lot of assumptions in that video, but no actual evidence to rule out two shooters. It’s just an hypothetical bullet trajectory reconstruction based on the assumption of one shooter, which is in fact the assumption in question.
The video in his post visualizes exactly what I described in my first comment, where I questioned the idea that there should be a lot more victims if there were two shooters. I said,
“The people who were hit were at the corners of the bleachers, either to Trump’s right or left, which would have put them in front of or behind Trump in Crooks' line of fire.”
If more than one shooter had a similar line of fire, that could account for the victims at the corners of the bleachers, like in the video reconstruction, and also result in a number of missed shots. LJ insists,
“If there was a second shooter trying to kill Trump, where are those victims?”
Well, the trajectory reconstruction in his video, assuming one shooter, shows that a number of shots missed. There could also have been a second shooter who missed, or two shooters who each got a hit and some misses. He can’t have it both ways. He can’t imply that there should be more victims with a second shooter and then post a video showing that half of the shots missed everything except the tractor. Why couldn’t a second shooter have missed? And by the way, I want to see the forensics the tractor. How many hits did it take?
Then LJ contradicts himself again where he says
“I am not disputing the audio evidence, but the audio does not show who fired the shots. What we do know is the physical location of the victims. All are within the margin of error of shots fired from Crooks' position.”
So he argues that the audio does not say who fired the shots, but that the position of the victims must mean that it was Crooks, even though he doesn’t know what angle a second shooter might have had, just as he doesn’t know from the audio who fired the shots.
But all of this is argumentative and speculative. What I really want to know is the explanation of the audio sequence in the Martenson video. How do you explain the completely different sounds of the first volley of 3 shots and the second volley of 6 shots? LJ has no answer for that.
The Martenson video actually could be consistent with 4 guns. The first volley of 3 shots is gun 1, shots 1-5 in the second volley represent guns 1 and 2, shot 6 in the second volley could be gun 3, and the last shot could be gun 4. Guns 1 and 2 could be the shooters, and guns 3 and 4 could be the local sniper and the secret service sniper.
Martenson’s analysis is consistent with guns 1 and 2 being fired at Trump. The delay in the crack – pop of the sonic boom and rifle report put guns 1 and 2 at very similar distances with bullets passing close to Trump’s microphone, which means that they were shooting at him. The differences in echoes from guns 1 and 2 argue separate positions. Martenson estimates that gun 2 was about 75 feet behind Crooks. In contrast, there was little or no audible crack-pop delay from guns 3 and 4, which means that those bullets were fired from much closer to Trump and they didn’t pass close to Trump’s microphone.
So far, I find the acoustic evidence very damning, and LJ has no explanation for it. LJ appears to be much less of an expert than he presents himself.
Most importantly, most imperatively, there is an easy answer to solving the audio question. We have all the guns, we know the position of the microphones, we know the position of Crooks and the counter-snipers, and the buildings are still standing. The shooting with Crooks' gun MUST be re-staged to see if the lone gunman theory matches the known audio. As Richard Feynman said,
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment it’s wrong.”
So I say to everyone, quit arguing and test the lone gunman theory.
" if he or she existed, did not pour fire on the pile of Secret Service Agents shielding Trump. A second shooter should have been pouring fire onto that point. At a minimum, the “second” shooter should have killed or wounded several Secret Service agents. That did not happen. "
This presupposes that the second shooter wasn't Crooks and the first CIA or SS. Once Crooks was taken down any further shots would have given the game away.
Applebaum must be thinking about her buddy Max Boot whose family was paid off by a foreign government. Not unlike the Biden Family itself. Most of these warmongers are on the take. Since they’re not very creative, they use their own misdeeds as inspiration for smearing others.
Quote
Jophus @JophusR
According to @anneapplebaum, the only “logical” reason for @DavidSacks and @elonmusk to support Trump is because they made a “quid pro quo” to get Vance on the ticket and have “business interests in Russia.”
“business interests in Russia” - hmmm, like Kaja Kallas’ husband, who has kept his company humming along while his wife, Estonia’s PM no less, continues her loud and angry “war mongering” against Russia?
Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
I don't think I would waste time asking USSS Director Cheattle any questions. I'd simply pass a House resolution calling on her to resign or be fired, and then subpoena the Assistant or Deputy Director for Operations and ask about 1) all the things that went wrong on July 13, and 2) all the requests for additional resources made by the Trump detail and how those were responded to.
Cheattle is "Dead Woman Walking" whose only interest at this point is self-interest.
The Deputy has a career to try and salvage.
2:09 PM · Jul 20, 2024
Many statements being made here and all over the web are predicated on assumptions - stated and unstated and other mechanisms for controlling the debate. These mind controlling techniques feed off our personal biases which we're all loaded with and they're different for all of us depending on where we've come from (TV, lived experiences, schooling ...). The result is mass confusion, debate, heated argument, division and chaos. For those of us who reject the spiritual dimension there is no alternative than to peer into the chaos and pin our hopes on one side or another. For the others amongst us, we have the advantage of an additional layer of analysis and can go back to first principles. When asking the ultimate cui bono? the answer is clear. The Adversay. John 10:10 tells us the objectives of the Adversary: Steal. Kill. Destroy. So who's winning here? The answer is clear. The Adversary and those with allegiance to him or compromised by him. Fortunately we here don't have to find ourselves stuck pinning our hopes on a human solution that can only ultimately disappoint. Trust in Him who has the final say.
I have no confidence in L. Cunningham's view. This was obviously a set-up. There were two or more shooters. Sorry, but I believe L. Cunningham is being trotted out as misinformation on behalf of the deep, murderous, state.
L. Cunningham comes off as a seasoned professional analyzing the situation.
We needed people like that.
Yes, intuition screams setup, but that intuition isn't always right.
It's notable that he says he started simply reviewing the facts but now he's getting to the point where he can't ignore the possibility that it was a setup.
On the other hand, I was surprised to hear him say that the reaction inside the perimeter was satisfactory. There's a lot of negative attention on that, but maybe those pundits don't actually know what they're talking about.
Also surprised to hear him taking the Iran Intel seriously, good to hear LJ contradict that one.
I didn’t find the Larry Johnson/Cunningham interview any more informative than the many other ex-Secret Service/professional protective services experts who have been interviewed all over the web. They are all on the same page that this was beyond incompetence. I’m perfectly willing to believe that, and whatever that implies.
However, LJ’s dismissal of a second shooter was simply nonsense, pure speculation. There is no reason to assume a second shooter would have started a fire fight with other counter-snipers and LEOs just to get their target. As an aside, I saw one interview with Dan Bongino who said that the bunting on the stage would have been covering a bullet proof barrier. I don’t know from the angles whether that would have protected the Secret Service huddling over Trump or not, but that’s a consideration.
Also, it’s not guaranteed that the 8-10 shots were in the direction of a packed mass of humanity. All the overhead maps I’ve seen show that Crooks line of fire was in front of the bleachers, no into them. The people who were hit were at the corners of the bleachers, either to Trump’s right or left, which would have put them in front of or behind Trump in Crook’s line of fire. Depending on the elevation of the shooter and the angle to the stage, it’s very possible that some of the bullets landed a mile or more down range. I’m perfectly willing to be corrected on these observations if better information is available.
Where I strongly disagree with LJ is on the second shooter. I can’t remember if you have covered this video or if any of your commenters have linked to it, but here is an excellent video with the first round of acoustic analysis appearing on the web.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LouUbMYb7Bc
The analysis provides some very powerful evidence that different guns were firing at Trump from different positions, possibly different elevations, but similar distances. I’d be very interested in getting your take on this evidence.
The analysis uses the audio from Trump’s microphone and audio from a bystander video near Crooks position. The bystander audio clearly demonstrates two different weapon sounds. First there is a volley of 3 shots, and then there is volley of 6 shots with a distinctly different sound. You don’t even need the spectral data to hear the difference.
After the volley of 3 there is a pause of several seconds before the volley of 6. Then there is pause of about 10 seconds before the final shot, which supposedly killed Crooks. It’s clear that the shooting had stopped before the kill shot to Crooks, which negates LJ’s contention that the shooting stopped after the kill shot.
There is lot’s more about echoes, positions, and elevations in the video. I’m waiting to see what happens with the acoustic evidence, whether it gets scrubbed from the web, or debunked by “official” sources or what.
Larry has a response to these questions at
https://sonar21.com/more-on-the-multiple-shots-scenario-and-scott-ritter-and-i-were-interviewed-by-ania/
"People are making way too big a deal of the recordings of the shots fired during the six-seconds of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Until we have a full accounting of how many shots were fired by Secret Service and Police counter-snipers, you cannot just assume that it was a second shooter. The following video makes it very clear that the shots fired at Donald Trump hit him and three others. One of those shots proved fatal to a Pennsylvanian firefighter. If there was a second shooter trying to kill Trump, where are those victims? Real simple question.
"This video clearly shows that the grouping of the shots fired by Crooks align with his shooting position. I am not disputing the audio evidence, but the audio does not show who fired those shots. What we do know is the physical location of the victims. All are within the margin of error of shots fired from Crooks’ position. Deal with the facts."
https://youtu.be/Jz8xdWeLtUc
I believe LJ is correct that *if a second shooter were shooting at Trump* then there would be more hits--it would make sense to shoot into the group of agents surrounding Trump or on top of Trump because you would have a good chance of those rounds getting through to Trump. If you had two people shooting at Trump you should have more hits.
The anomalous shots that Martenson says he identified need not have been fired *at Trump.* The most recent reports state that a local sniper also shot at Crooks but missed, while the SS sniper didn't miss. Already, then, you have 3 separate guns, but not necessarily any more than one shooting at Trump.
If there had been a second shooter, Trump would have been dead.
I have to assume that. It wouldn't make sense that one guy started shooting while the other waited to see what happened. They should have been synchronized to start shooting at the same instant--maximum likelihood of killing Trump, maximum confusion to security, maximum possibility of getting out alive if it came to that.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I’m going to play the devil’s advocate. Call me a conspiracy analyst if you want.
I’m not convinced by LJ’s latest video post that supposedly argues against two shooters. There are a lot of assumptions in that video, but no actual evidence to rule out two shooters. It’s just an hypothetical bullet trajectory reconstruction based on the assumption of one shooter, which is in fact the assumption in question.
The video in his post visualizes exactly what I described in my first comment, where I questioned the idea that there should be a lot more victims if there were two shooters. I said,
“The people who were hit were at the corners of the bleachers, either to Trump’s right or left, which would have put them in front of or behind Trump in Crooks' line of fire.”
If more than one shooter had a similar line of fire, that could account for the victims at the corners of the bleachers, like in the video reconstruction, and also result in a number of missed shots. LJ insists,
“If there was a second shooter trying to kill Trump, where are those victims?”
Well, the trajectory reconstruction in his video, assuming one shooter, shows that a number of shots missed. There could also have been a second shooter who missed, or two shooters who each got a hit and some misses. He can’t have it both ways. He can’t imply that there should be more victims with a second shooter and then post a video showing that half of the shots missed everything except the tractor. Why couldn’t a second shooter have missed? And by the way, I want to see the forensics the tractor. How many hits did it take?
Then LJ contradicts himself again where he says
“I am not disputing the audio evidence, but the audio does not show who fired the shots. What we do know is the physical location of the victims. All are within the margin of error of shots fired from Crooks' position.”
So he argues that the audio does not say who fired the shots, but that the position of the victims must mean that it was Crooks, even though he doesn’t know what angle a second shooter might have had, just as he doesn’t know from the audio who fired the shots.
But all of this is argumentative and speculative. What I really want to know is the explanation of the audio sequence in the Martenson video. How do you explain the completely different sounds of the first volley of 3 shots and the second volley of 6 shots? LJ has no answer for that.
The Martenson video actually could be consistent with 4 guns. The first volley of 3 shots is gun 1, shots 1-5 in the second volley represent guns 1 and 2, shot 6 in the second volley could be gun 3, and the last shot could be gun 4. Guns 1 and 2 could be the shooters, and guns 3 and 4 could be the local sniper and the secret service sniper.
Martenson’s analysis is consistent with guns 1 and 2 being fired at Trump. The delay in the crack – pop of the sonic boom and rifle report put guns 1 and 2 at very similar distances with bullets passing close to Trump’s microphone, which means that they were shooting at him. The differences in echoes from guns 1 and 2 argue separate positions. Martenson estimates that gun 2 was about 75 feet behind Crooks. In contrast, there was little or no audible crack-pop delay from guns 3 and 4, which means that those bullets were fired from much closer to Trump and they didn’t pass close to Trump’s microphone.
So far, I find the acoustic evidence very damning, and LJ has no explanation for it. LJ appears to be much less of an expert than he presents himself.
Most importantly, most imperatively, there is an easy answer to solving the audio question. We have all the guns, we know the position of the microphones, we know the position of Crooks and the counter-snipers, and the buildings are still standing. The shooting with Crooks' gun MUST be re-staged to see if the lone gunman theory matches the known audio. As Richard Feynman said,
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment it’s wrong.”
So I say to everyone, quit arguing and test the lone gunman theory.
" if he or she existed, did not pour fire on the pile of Secret Service Agents shielding Trump. A second shooter should have been pouring fire onto that point. At a minimum, the “second” shooter should have killed or wounded several Secret Service agents. That did not happen. "
This presupposes that the second shooter wasn't Crooks and the first CIA or SS. Once Crooks was taken down any further shots would have given the game away.
Unless they got cold feet.
David Sacks @DavidSacks
Applebaum must be thinking about her buddy Max Boot whose family was paid off by a foreign government. Not unlike the Biden Family itself. Most of these warmongers are on the take. Since they’re not very creative, they use their own misdeeds as inspiration for smearing others.
Quote
Jophus @JophusR
According to @anneapplebaum, the only “logical” reason for @DavidSacks and @elonmusk to support Trump is because they made a “quid pro quo” to get Vance on the ticket and have “business interests in Russia.”
Who’s the conspiracy theorist now?
“business interests in Russia” - hmmm, like Kaja Kallas’ husband, who has kept his company humming along while his wife, Estonia’s PM no less, continues her loud and angry “war mongering” against Russia?
Tangential but for those who didn’t know. He’s somebody worth knowing about.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/22/1214479540/jkf-assassination-anniversary-60-years-clint-hill-secret-service-kennedy
I didn't, now I do, and thank you for sharing. I paraphrase: "there was no such thing as PTSD in those days..." - what chilling words.