Investigating The Investigators

Amateur sleuths, cherry picking anomolies, begging the question, and some rudimentary audio analysis.

"I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Internet."

There are great mysteries in the world that confound us all.

Why is the ancient archeological site of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey—which appears to be a warning to future civilizations, by an ancient civilization of past and future apocalyptic events occurring at a specific astronomical date stamp—only 5% unearthed by archeologists with no plans to continue?

Why do ancient civilizations around the world, that never made contact according to historians, have such similar cultural myths and origin stories around a great flood and rebuilding in its aftermath?

Was the Great Pyramid of Giza some kind of sacred geometrical megalithic energy receiver harnessing the earth’s frequencies like an ancient power plant?

Did the driver of the limousine in Dealey Plaza take the JFK headshot in now missing frames of the Zapruder Film?

Was Nixon set up by the Watergate “plumbers” and the mockingbird media including “sleuth” reporters for the Washington Post who won the Pulitzer Prize?

Why is pixelation required for Japanese sexual organs in porno films?

We may never know the answers to such confounding mysteries of our world, but we still probe as deeply as we can for them without discharging premature conclusions.

There are conclusions to simple and complex mysteries, ancient and contemporary which people often arrive at, not based on evidence, but on previously held beliefs. They mold an event to fit an outcome they need to believe and dismiss any contrary evidence as coincidences, anomalies, or simply unsatisfactory. The blind acceptance of bare claims is a logical fallacy called begging the question and leads to erroneous conclusions by starting from biased assumptions, or bare claims.

Also known as circular reasoning, it doesn’t require only bare claims and can have cherry-picked evidence to support the premise and conclusions:

The “deep state” is out to get Trump because they impeached Trump twice, set up his supporters on January 6th, and tried to imprison him through lawfare on false evidence to lock him up and end his campaign for President, and when all that failed, they moved on to assassinate him last Saturday, proving the “deep state” is out to get Trump.

I’m not asserting that any of this is false, indeed to the most obtuse observer not sporting pink hair, a nose ring, and a framed portrait of Marx above their bed, this would all appear as legitimate evidence to validate the premise. It is merely an example of circular reasoning that could be countered by other cherry-picked evidence by someone biased toward believing all of that is theatre and diversion for the order ab chao and divide and conquer agenda.

A counter-example of circular reasoning by someone who also believes in the “deep state” but is biased toward the opposite would look something like this:

The “deep state” chose Trump to carry out the pandemic, initiate lockdowns, sign the CARES ACT to print $6 Trillion and cause inflation, and sign off on Operation Warp Speed so he could sell the “vaccine” to conservatives who wouldn’t have taken them under a Hillary Clinton Presidency and that’s why the “deep state” chose Trump.

Again, I’m not making any assertions that this is true or false, it’s easy to see how someone could use this reasoning to arrive at a conclusion and support a premise. The evidence in that example is no less damning than the first. It’s merely a counter-example of circular reasoning.

If you were to introduce adherents of the first example to the second and vice versa, they would be at loggerheads, each deeply wedded to their conclusions, using rationalization to discount the others.

They may engage in the following behaviors to ensure their deeply wedded conclusions are protected from scrutiny or collapse:

• Cognitive Dissonance: This occurs when a person experiences discomfort due to holding conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. To reduce this discomfort, they rationalize or dismiss evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to favor information that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or values, and to dismiss or undervalue information that contradicts them.

• Defensive Reasoning: When an individual uses reasoning to defend their position against evidence that challenges it, often by making excuses or downplaying the contradictory evidence.

• Motivated Reasoning: When an individual’s reasoning is driven by the motivation to reach a particular conclusion, rather than by objective evidence. This often involves rationalizing away evidence that conflicts with their desired conclusion.

A more specific counter-example of the original would be inverted from the original premise or conclusion by simply adding four words to each:

The “deep state” wants people to believe the “deep state” is out to get Trump by impeaching Trump twice, setting up his supporters on January 6th, and trying to imprison him through lawfare on false evidence to lock him up and end his campaign for President, and when all that failed, they moved on to give the illusion of an assassination attempt, proving the “deep state” wants people to believe the “deep state” is out to get Trump.

In all cases, the specific actions are being used to prove the conclusion, but they are also assumed to be the result of the conclusion. This means the premises are not truly independent but are instead dependent on accepting the conclusion as true from the outset.

If all of this seems divisive, chaotic, exhausting, and confusing, perhaps that is the point. When people who do not see any of the above as motivating factors for events that transpire (perceived as organically or through planned actions) these people cannot fathom some other power is at work, and either turn to malevolence or incompetence as plausible explanations for everything. They’re missing the bigger picture of well-documented and continued applied psychological operations on the masses.

Let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of Crowd Psychology and consider how they might be applied on a national scale from a top-down centralized power structure hiding both in plain sight and behind the Wizard’s curtain, with ulterior motives.

The concepts (later given these titles) were first presented in the famous work by Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of The Popular Mind (1894):

• Social Identity Theory: Understanding how individuals identify with groups helps in predicting group behaviors. Centralized sources can create a strong sense of in-group identity (national pride, political affiliation, cultural or racial association) to foster unity and collective action.

• Deindividuation: This occurs when individuals in a crowd lose their sense of individual identity and accountability, often leading to behavior they wouldn't typically exhibit alone. Authorities or well-funded organizations (PACS, NGOs, Hollywood, etc) serving as proxies might use rallies, protests, events, and various forms of propaganda, to encourage deindividuation, promoting collective action.

• Emotional Contagion: Emotions can spread rapidly through a crowd. By carefully orchestrating emotional stimuli (like passionate speeches, and evocative imagery—think Iwo Jima 2.0), centralized sources can influence the mood and behavior of large groups.

• Conformity and Peer Pressure: People tend to conform to the behavior and opinions of the majority. Centralized power can leverage media and social influencers to set trends that the wider population then follows.

Much of this can be done digitally today with algorithms that promote the “most followed” voices who are on message while discarding (hiding from people’s digital feeds—or shadow banning) those that aren’t doing the right kind of influencing. The algorithms can be tuned in advance of any event to move the crowd in whichever direction is desired.

The Trump event of Saturday past is being called an assassination attempt. Those who did not call it that were lambasted by those certain this is exactly what they watched on their programming screens. In the aftermath of the attempt, all four of the above concepts were on full display across attention network feeding troughs.

A shocking number of people still seem incurious about what happened, but more importantly, how it was permitted to happen, and if it was, what were the motivations behind that?

The conformity into camps based on social identity can be generally divided into three:

• Those who think it was staged, replete with fake blood, (see videos of people on California beaches still suffering grotesque levels of TDS) and a photo opportunity that Trump was behind (not easy to buy)

• Those who think it was partially staged, for different reasons than the TDS sufferers claim, and Trump probably wasn’t in on it

• Those who are certain the “deep state” is out to get Trump and prevent him from being President again and are willing to “take him out” if needed

Let’s start from the single and perhaps only point of agreement for most. All evidence presented by eyewitness accounts, video footage, social media feeds, photographs, memes, and corporate media broadcasts (after the initial “Trump Falls” headlines were scrubbed) would be consistent with exactly what this event has been labeled—an assassination attempt.

Children of Job posted a sleuthing substack exploring the Schismogenic motivations for this assassination attempt. It’s worth a read and begins with facts and premises.

Events of this sort have always been excellent for generating disagreement, i.e., for polarizing public opinion into two or more camps.

See the examples of circular reasoning above to add this event as supporting evidence of polarizing premises and conclusions.

The post continues with…

Facts: We know that it did not succeed. We do not know if it was intended to succeed.

Before I could go on to the speculation and anomalies of this post, I had to pause to reread the facts and couldn’t help but see the second claim denies the first.

If we do not know if it was intended to succeed, then we do not know that it did not succeed. A failed assassination of this nature could be a tremendous success if that were the intention.

It goes to the root of the classification of this “event” as either an assassination attempt or to get people to believe there was an assassination attempt. This may seem pedantic, but this is exactly where the dividing line falls.

We can suppose with pretty meaningful confidence, based on the history of such events that we will not get clean evidence from the official narrative peddlers or the official investigators (FBI) and are left to do the leg work ourselves. That leaves us with amateur investigators, many of whom are offering embarrassing assessments of what took place based on all evidence available. Some have fallen victim to those concepts of crowd psychology or are unknowingly engaging in faulty reasoning before even examining any evidence—defensive rationalization, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning, or confirmation bias.

While the primary focus for amateur sleuths should be an impassionate forensics investigation with a focus on bullet trajectories, video analysis of bullet impacts, audio forensics of projectile sound signatures, and photographic evidence of entry and exit wounds, the starting point of amateur investigators’ online is often the glaring anomalies, that once compounded atop another create such a statistical improbability of naturally occurring (organic) events, that the official narrative is destroyed instantly, resulting in the emergence of other actors with ulterior motivations.

The security failure anomalies can be rudimentarily justified in one of three categories:

• random incompetence: a series of unfortunate security failures where the lone gunman theory holds up

• permitted incompetence: a series of partially permitted security failures

• commanded incompetence: direct stand-down orders for commanded security failures, and knowledge of the gunman or Patsy (perhaps even instructions and assistance)

The official story points to the first category and is for the lone gunman subscribers.

The second two do not negate the lone gunman as the “assassin” but they bring into question the validity of this theory and the involvement of authorities in some aspects of the operation creating a new basket of anomalies worthy of attention and answers:

• ignoring the shooter (or Patsy) as he canvassed the site with a range finder from the road around 50 minutes before Trump took the stage

• allowed the shooter (or Patsy) to fly a drone over the site hours before the start of the rally

• ignoring the shooter (or Patsy) as he paced around the building (on video) on the opposite side of the chain link fence in the background approximately 30 minutes before Trump took the stage

• allowing the shooter (or Patsy) to carry a ladder and rifle into the parking area (assuming they weren’t provided for him) of AGI site where the Sheriff and tactical teams were supposedly present inside the building—at least two patrol vehicles outside

• allowing Trump to take the stage with a known threat spotted (and photographed!) by multiple SS and Police roaming the area and still not accounted for

• leaving the roof of the shooter’s (or Patsy’s) perch completely unguarded throughout the entire event

• allowing the shooter (or Patsy) onto the roof only 400-410 feet from the main stage where Trump stood, for anywhere from 4 to 10 minutes before the first shots are fired

• not taking Trump off the stage immediately during those 4 to 10 minutes when it went over the radio that a suspicious guy was on top of a roof adjacent to the rally

If Thomas Mathew Crooks was there to assassinate President Trump we would need the following facts:

• Did he fire his weapon?

• Did projectiles discharge from his weapon and can they be accounted for?

• Did the rounds that struck (Trump’s ear—assuming one round did) and audience members come from his rifle?

Again, in the absence of this information, and with distrust of the FBI so rampant, we may never know the answers.

That still leaves the need for plausible explanations of the following anomalies:

• Why was his body positioned at least 5-6 feet away from his weapon if shots 6-9 were the “kill” shots from the sniper team on the barn roof to the right side of the rally facing the stage since the sniper team shown above Trump weren’t firing their weapons because they had their view of Crooks obstructed by trees? If he was still firing his weapon as he was hit by snipers, it would be physically impossible for his body to be so far from his weapon in the aerial shots.

  

  The sniper team in most videos has no clear shot based on where Crooks’ body was found. Their view was obstructed by the trees.

• Would investigators have cocked up the crime scene so badly to move the weapon six feet away from Crooks (for their safety) if his corpse showed multiple entry and exit wounds and a headshot as they approached it?

• Assuming Crooks fired anywhere from 3-5 shots at the rally, why did he purchase 100 rounds that day, but not prepare with proper optics? Why does Crooks' AR weapon appear to have such terrible optics mounted? The blurry aerial shots do not show the outline of a sophisticated scope, but that of a 3x red dot sight or cheap magnifier. For a guy practicing at the range for weeks up until the day before, with so much detailed premeditated behavior including planting explosives in his car (according to the official story), why didn’t he upgrade to the most important tool needed to get the job done with accuracy?

• If this more recent photo (relative to the shooting) shows the weapon in his clutch before being moved, how did his feet and legs get turned upright if he was prone and shooting when he was eliminated?

  

• Why was the window open to the building where Crooks’ body was found, where the head of the Secret Service claimed another sharp-shooting team was placed? Why would an available sharp shooting team be placed inside the building offering Crooks his close access to the former President and not atop it preventing Crooks access?

• Why are the audio signatures from the first five shots and echos different from the next three shots in quick succession, and the final round different from the other groupings? This suggests at least three gunmen that day. At least Crooks (or “The Shooter”), plus what would need to be two snipers according to the official story. More on this below in my audio analysis…

• Why is there no video of Crooks firing his weapon? In the hysteria of the moment, all cameras happen to move from him holding his weapon on that roof to shaking furiously at nothing, completely missing the event. Up near the stage, the one guy filming behind Trump happens to take a damn selfie video at the exact moment the shots begin. I suppose the odds of that aren’t bad given our age of hyper narcissism. (If anyone has a video link of Crooks firing his weapon please add it in the comments.)

All of these anomalies have yet to be answered, and I suspect we will not be getting solid responses from either official or amateur investigators.

In that case, let’s stick with what evidence we do have.

Having sifted through a week of bullshit accounts, with glaring holes, and assertions without evidence I finally found a somewhat believable account that connects most major dots (though not all) regarding ballistics and video evidence.

The official story appears best re-presented in a single thread on X by Oliver Alexander. You can read that thread here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1814300337299165562.html

The image (video analysis inside that link) shows the trajectory of all shots fired from Crooks’ position, though a shooter from nearby Crooks’ position cannot be discounted. It shows each round’s trajectory, names the victims struck by each round, and shows where they were at the time of the shooting, but doesn’t account for the round that struck the hydraulic line on the crane behind the right grandstand. In this scenario it would have to be the 1st shot that also clips Trump’s ear, and hits the metal railing on the right grandstand, then deflects and takes out the hydraulic line, but the timing doesn’t match. It also doesn’t hold water IF Crooks only fired the first three rounds, meaning a second shooter would be needed to explain shots four and five which are wildly off the trajectory of the first three, yet do match the audio signatures of the first three.

This raises another behavioral anomaly—why is there a gap of 2 full seconds between the first three shots and shots four and five, allowing the Secret Service time to cover Trump? Why would Crooks wait 2 seconds and not keep firing through his sights, and then fire two shots way off target hitting the audience members Corey Comperatore and James Copenhaver?

Click to enlarge.

Alexander’s analysis claims that five shots were fired by Crooks, while the sound signatures analyzed by Chris Mortensen of Peak Prosperity and Health Ranger (of Natural News) show that the audio forensics of the first three are different from the rest.

In keeping with the title of the post, I decided to put my skills as a former film director and editor to work doing some rudimentary audio analysis from the main camera (stationary) used by Right Side Broadcasting that day, and included in Oliver Alexander’s analysis of projectiles and victims to see if Mortensen’s 100% conclusion of a 2nd shooter holds weight.

First things first.

Some basics of firearm audio:

• First Sound: The muzzle blast, which is the immediate sound of the gunpowder igniting and the projectile being expelled from the firearm's barrel. This can be delayed with the location of the projectile depending on the microphone’s (human ears) distance to the firearm.

• Second Sound:

  • Sonic Boom: If the projectile is traveling faster than the speed of sound, you will hear a sharp crack or whip-like sound as it breaks the sound barrier (approximately 343 meters per second or 1125 feet per second at sea level).

  • Echo: The reflection of the muzzle blast sound off of nearby surfaces such as walls, buildings, or natural features. This echo can be perceived as a secondary sound following the initial muzzle blast, especially in environments where reflections are prominent.

This first image shows the difference between the audio signatures of Trump speaking and when the shooting begins. It does not include the 9th shot (faint) that we hear exactly ten seconds after the 8th shot.

Click to enlarge.

Now let’s zoom in on the shots alone and see if we can accurately label the shots and echoes. Each shot has an echo signature that should match the distance (as measured in time or ms) from the shot. Shots one, two, and three clearly show a uniform sound signature between shots and echoes.

Yes, I misspelled echoes, but I wasn’t going to redo the damn thing. Click to enlarge. Note: upon closer examination, the 7th shot is next to the echo of the 6th with the 7th in red here the likely echo of 7.

Shots 6-8 show some anomalies from the first five shots, indicating that we have a second gun going off in addition to similar sound signatures to the gun used in shots 1-3.

Before we zoom into that group of shots and clean up the background noises to locate shot signatures and echoes, Mortensen in the above video claims they are different in sound but the shots and echoes of rounds 4 and 5 pretty much line up with shots 1-3 in the image below. They all reveal exactly (more or less) the same millisecond differential or two squares on the grid of the following image between shot and echo.

Shots 1-5 are all similar. Click to enlarge.

Listen to 1-3 and 4-5 isolated for sound uniformity. The shots (or cracks) are rather high-pitched “SNAP” sounds peaking higher in decibels, followed by lower register echoes.

Here are shots 1-5 isolated with MUTED screaming, yelling, and other background noises. I’ve added 1.5 seconds between shots 4-5 to isolate those sound signatures from each other since they happen in quick succession. In doing this the echoes of 4 and 5 do not resonate as long after and are cut off compared to shots 1-3 and sound different. They have more of a whooshing-to-silence (cut-off) sound—my editing. But the caliber and rifle used in 4 and 5 sound similar to the “SNAP” and echoes of shots 1-3.

After shot five things become quite muddled, and the hysteria of the crowd doesn’t make things easier. But we begin to have audio anomalies that now need to be explained by sniper fire, according to the official story.

The shots and echoes begin to differ from the first five shots and become shorter on shot 6 and then have no echoes on either 7-8 or 7-9 depending on how we label the final shots (excluding the very last one exactly ten seconds later) which has its own distinct sound signature.

The echoes on shots 1-5 and even 6 are absent on 7-8 or 7-9.

The audio register of the final two shots is very distinguishable from the previous six, with a much deeper sound probably from a different caliber.

The lack of echo might be explained by the different caliber, the speed of the projectile (lacking sonic boom), and the trajectory of the projectile, assuming these rounds are from the sniper team on the roof barn furthest from Crooks. They travel behind the grandstands from a higher elevation meaning the sound went out into different directions from the camera’s microphone and Trump’s microphone, while the first five projectiles (we might assume according to the official story) went through the grandstands in front of the cameras and nearer Trump’s microphone.

Listen to shots 1-5 isolated without crowd noises in equal succession (edited), with two seconds of silence followed by shots 7 and 8.

The last two sound like a deeper “CLICK” with no echo signature instead of higher “SNAP” sounds with clear echo signatures.

Let’s move closer in on 6-8 now to see if we can better make sense of these rounds and the anomalies between shots and echoes, and no echoes.

The distance of echoes to shots on six and seven do not match and shot seven’s echo is louder and more pronounced. Eight sounds like a different caliber, and while similar to shot seven, no echo is detected with the noise of the crowd possibly hiding it.

Regular speed shots 6-8.

For anyone interested here are five minutes of video of me playing around in Adobe Audition with shots 6-8. I look for shot signatures (higher peaks) versus echo signatures (lower peaks). I check for similar signatures of each between the three shots while trying to find the echo for shot eight within the crowd noise. Finally, around the third minute, I remove the crowd noise and attempt to isolate each signature to see if the above labeling matches.

Any number of these three shots may be snipers, with the final two shots sounding different from the first five, while the sixth is debatable since it has a different echo signature from the first five. For the official story, seven or eight would need to be the kill shot. Shots five or six may have been the shooter's final shot, assuming there were no other shooters stationed behind Crooks and those were fired by him.

My amateur three-hour analysis concludes the following:

• Shots 1-5 similar audio signatures (shot + echo)

• Shot 6 is similar to 1-5 with the echo paired closer to the shot indicating another shooter with a similar caliber in a different location

• Shots 7-8 are similar in audio signature with 8 lacking an echo

• Shot 9 was not analyzed here but sounds different from all the rest with no echo signature. It sounds distant and suppressed.

---

There is plenty of cherry-picking of evidence going on to support narratives around the assassination attempt last Saturday.

Other anomalies were noticed by the masses over the past week…

The “water tower” gunman has made the rounds. This theory doesn’t hold up with video evidence. The pixelated shadow of the nob atop the tower while zoomed in shows pixelated shadow movements, not a second gunman though people who want to see a second gunman will certainly see one. How his shots line up with the stated victims and video evidence is never made clear by the supporters of this theory.

The trajectory from there doesn’t account for ballistics angles, nor wounded including the headshot on Comperatore. The screen was too high for a water tower gunman to hit the hydraulic line, account for the photographic round, magically shot by Doug Mills a New York Times photographer who just happened to be in that classroom with George W. Bush on the morning of 9/11 with the children reciting those odd words—KITE, STEEL, PLANE, MUST, HIT.

Isn’t it incredible that in the year 2024, we have 8k resolution cameras, and not a single source present that day has uploaded a source file at high resolution that hasn’t been compressed into MP4 files at 1080p resolution and then recompressed again by social media uploads?

That leaves us with zoomed-in pixelated garbage that looks like it was shot on a Motorolla flip phone from 2004.

The women in the crowd who lacked situational awareness and exhibited strange behavior behind Trump, looked suspiciously like the assistant director of the FBI. This confirmed what people had already concluded in their minds—the “deep state” was involved directly. But why would they risk something so stupid and obvious?

An anonymous woman has since come forward to confess to multiple sources that she was the woman in question to several figures of the Mainstream Alternative Media including Candace Owens, but unless she comes forward to show her face and give her name, people won’t be satisfied.

Klaus Schwab’s sauna boy, Yuval Harari’s recent comments that “If Trump becomes President again in 2024 it will be the final death blow to the Global Order” has been used as cherry-picked proof the “deep state” was behind the attempt to take him out before God intervened.

The cherry-pickers have taken this to mean the “Globalists” or New World Order. Using simple reverse psychology, if you wanted to get people to believe Trump was the man to eliminate the “Globalists” this is exactly the kind of thing you’d want Harari to communicate to Trump supporters or even those on the fence. People who will vote for Hillary(?) do not care what people like Harari say. Trump has since hinted at naming CEO of Blackrock Larry Fink as his Treasury Secretary in case you didn’t have doubts about the “deep state” motivations to “take out Trump.”

Then there’s the short position in DJT 0.00%↑ by Austin Private Wealth allegedly made “the day before” the shooting, proving that this fund had advanced knowledge and was trying to profit off of Trump’s death and subsequent collapsing stock since Trump is the only major celebrity keeping that attention network “Truth Social” a popular echo chamber. Igor Chudov covered this in a post as did 2nd Smartest Guy In the Room, as clear evidence someone knew Trump was going to be killed that day.

Dig deeper into Chudov’s post and you’ll see that it’s much less criminally evident than the cherry pickers are making it out to be. Suspicious? Yes. Criminal evidence of advanced knowledge? Hardly.

What do we know about this odd financial bet? One thing to note is that it was made sometime before it was reported on the 13F filing: form 13F must be filed after the end of the quarter, and in this case, refers to the position as of the end of the second quarter, or 6/30/2024.

This means more than two weeks before the shooting (not the day before as people are claiming) and maybe even long before that filing deadline, the position was opened, NOT the day before.

Buying put options (shorting the stock) also requires an expiration date for the put options. If they were set to expire after the election, the fund may have been betting that Trump would become President in November and sometime between November and taking office would divest his shares in DJT 0.00%↑ , selling many of them or putting them into a trust.

Another possibility is that Trump divests from DJT 0.00%↑ AND Elon Musk, who is giving $45 million each month to Trump’s campaign and happens to live in Austin where this fund is located lures Trump back to Twitter (X) for his regular digital performance. In advance of the election, Trump might be using that platform more, and this fund might have had insider information on this. It would all depend on when those put options expire, but it can easily be chalked up to other motivations. It’s certainly not as damning as Larry Silverstein taking out a $4 Billion insurance policy on the Twin Towers in the months before they were brought down, while he conveniently had a doctor’s appointment the morning of, diverting from his habit of eating breakfast at the top of tower one.

Then there’s the video footage (Zoomed in) of Trump’s ear, that claims to show it getting clipped by a bullet or a bug. This is a hoax video clearly, as the image has been horizontally flipped in editing software and shows the American flag side of his hat and not the 45/47 side of his hat above his right ear. That video has tens of millions of views and continues to make the rounds with the “critical thinkers.”

Add to that the UFO video making the rounds which I could create myself using AfterFX in about five minutes.

Then there are many posts on how there would have been much more blood if Trump was hit by a bullet in the ear, and why that blood would not appear so bright red for so long afterward once oxygenated, since it turns dark red. Make of that what you will. It’s not like the average person knows what an ear shot should “look like” on their programming screens.

Some hot shots on YouTube recreate two ear shots using what they suspect was the gunman’s caliber. One grazes the side, the other takes out a meaty portion of a ballistic’s dummy test skull.

That’s it for me Good Citizens, on this topic.

I’ve spent about twenty hours this week going through as much footage and attention network feed as possible in my spare time. I have no intention to persuade readers to arrive at one conclusion or another on this event. Only to continue to think before doing so and wait for more information in the future. Future outcomes are often pretty good clues to past events.

In the meantime, minds will make of it what they need. We all have our biases and sometimes need our conclusions to match them.

The truth will eventually meander to the forefront and be there for those interested.

---

Oh, looky what happened today, that none of us could have predicted last year. It’s almost as if this entire (s)election pageantry is…staged.

Time for Trump to return to sell what needs to be sold to conservatives? War with Iran for Israel? Larry Fink as Treasury Secretary? Continued war in Ukraine? More “draining the swamp” with trillion-dollar money printing?

---

Next week the two flock features that were postponed for this week will appear, probably one on Wednesday, and one on Saturday. One is on the U.S. housing market, and the other is on Simps, Incels and Volcels. Join the flock to read those or to support more free works like this. Your patronage is always appreciated.

Fixed Income Pensioner Discount (honor system)

Student Discount (valid .edu email)

Thanks for sharing

Visit shop.thegoodcitizen.live

BTC: bc1qchkg507t0qtg27fuccgmrfnau9s3nk4kvgkwk0
LTC: LgQVM7su3dXPCpHLMsARzvVXmky1PMeDwY
XLM: GDC347O6EWCMP7N5ISSXYEL54Z7PNQZYNBQ7RVMJMFMAVT6HUNSVIP64
DASH: XtxYWFuUKPbz6eQbpQNP8As6Uxm968R9nu
XMR: 42ESfh5mdZ5f5vryjRjRzkEYWVnY7uGaaD