---

I had decided not to spend the first paragraph in every update to greet readers, and tell them how much they are welcome, or how much I love them, first because that's to be understood on a general level, second because my updates are long already, not to be digested in one sitting. But also, I don't want to come across like video producers whose challenge is to build subscribers in order to get up in the youtube algorithm. Youtube is built in such a way as to compel video producers to beg viewers to subscribe, and also to tell their viewers they are loved / appreciated. Praises for video owners who resist the beg, but, I totally understand the dilemma they are all in.

I don't want to make money here (shudder), so I don't need to make pretences about how I feel for you whom I don't even know. I view you as a human like myself, and assume you are a Christian with trials and tribulations, or a Christian that needs some basic guidance in the Word. God is the Word. He has chosen to give us Direction by the Word until we enter the new life.

The bitter-sweet side of being a Christian can manifest when the Spirit moves on us to say something like, "you are not alone." Fear of losing the Spirit is proof to God that you desire Him, but the Christian who walks away from God when God is silent and not moving in him/her fails the test. If we are worried about our salvation, that to me looks like a positive, hopeful thing. God is moved when we in fear feel a desperate, "I want to be saved, I want to be in His Spirit, one with Him."

But if we are confident in salvation based only on the work of Jesus while not applying effort ourselves in getting right with God, we might just miss the Grace that comes to those who put in the effort. I don't think that the effort needs to be over-whelming, and I don't think we are called to being over-righteous. In the Old Testament, the gross sins of mankind are emphasized, and righteousness is defined pretty-much as staying clear of those sins for the sake of loving obedience to the God of Israel. Jesus explained righteousness in all sorts of phrases and pictures, and stressed that the heart is its core.

The one who should put in the most effort is the one backsliding, into adultery, for example, having become divorced and then living with a partner that God forbids. This appears to be the most-common sin in Christianity at this time. This person could truly be alone, with God remaining at a distance. It's is a very bad deal to trade God away for a human partner, slap yourself.

I believe that God arranges the Christian experience such that, no matter where one happens to be on the rope to the New Earth, whether low or high, doing poorly or super, God will egg us on to doing better, for our own sakes, that He might gave you a richer welcome, for God wants to be cheery, happy, delighted, about us. And we rob Him of this when we shun Him for a long-standing sin. Living with a forbidden partner is not a one-time, short sin, but can be every long term. God's disappointment smolders, grows in anger, and He lashes out at us with punishments as signs of His displeasure.

And when we come out of adultery, and especially if it's because the partner left us, do we then go back to God as if nothing happened, expecting to have His Spirit wrapped lovingly around us like a warm comforter on a chilly night? He'll probably be happier that you go back to Him with more fervor, rather than seeking another forbidden partner, but we should not expect the fattened calf slaughtered for us of we come back after backsliding.

The fattened calf, I think, is for the non-Christian sinner who realizes, for the first time, that God is good, and that it's best to be with Him, but I doubt very much that, after we taste of the Spirit, that if we sin grossly, we get a fattened-calf barbecue party as soon as we stop sinning. What do you think? "Hey God, I've stopped sinning, don't forget the party whistles with the tender loin, or I'll be very disappointed."

But when a soldier of satan abandons satan for the first time to become a loyalist for God, it is indeed a happy time in heaven. We can understand this. There is a question of whether that sinner will need to pay in punishments for past behavior, but if that man/women is willing to stand under the measured punishments chosen carefully by God, it will be cause for even greater joy in heaven after the endurance. That's what it means to persevere. We don't expect that we can party in this world in shameful acts, then become seated at the right hand of Jesus the day we repent. What should we expect at our conversion?

If we experience the Grace of God, the open door to eternal life, that is more than we deserve already. That's why salvation is called a gift, not because we shouldn't work for salvation, but because we don't deserve it. It's not a gift that cannot be removed. The Bible makes it clear that salvation can be revoked if we don't stay the Course, if we go back to disappointing God. There is probably a different point for everyone where God revokes the Gift.

And this is why some Christians may be in fear, feeling like God has perhaps abandoned them, due to heaps of sinfulness after receiving the Gift. We deserve to feel alone, to feel abandoned, but if we are wise enough to press on, to make amends to God, to weep in all sincerity for hurting Him, then, from time to time, we may experience a ray of Light, the sweet part of the bitter-sweet part of Christianity. Kick yer own arse, sinner. Shake a leg and heal. Hurry. You might just get lucky, crossing the finish line with pants on fire. You might get to be a door-opener in Heaven, or a toilet cleaner, much better than the outer darkness.

I haven't been with a woman since about 2005. I sinned. I've been making amends. I highly recommend that you get out of a relationship with a forbidden mate, if that's where you are. Better to have God than a forbidden mate, for the end will be purely bitter with him/her. If your spouse was not a Christian, and if he/she leaves you, can are allowed to re-marry, but, otherwise, you had best remain alone with God. You can do it. Don't view yourself as lowly for being single, but treasure it to the point that you treasure time spent with God.

I don't think that, just because all of our sins are forgiven for the purpose of eternal life, that we receive no chastisement from God. How will we be corrected if there is no punishment upon us. Pity the person who sins but gets no chastisement because God's not concerned for correcting that damned person. But if God punishes our sins as corrective measures, we are being counted into the Book of Life, if we correct ourselves. Otherwise, God has an eraser, or a twig cutter.

When a soldier enlisted with the army of God defects to the golden calf of satan, he/she doesn't get prime ribs and honey-dip sauce when returning to camp. It is true to say that God can be tough. He'll even stick his foot in front of your leg to trip you onto your angry face, to get your attention. He's not always mild and fluffy feathers. If I anger God, He'll anger me to give a solid taste of what I gave Him. If you angered Him for months, you don't get calamity for just a day in return. You get measure for measure. You won't get out of jail until paying the last penny if you cuss and complain about the punishment. I can get out earlier for good behavior. Don't despise God your police officer and jailer, for He's also the Judge who can get you out early, if you earn it.

If we say, I'll pay the price from God for my sin, so long as I can keep my salvation, and we then launch out into living with a prohibited partner, we are asking to see fire in God's eyes. Thunderbolts to your household.

We really do need to understand better what it means when Jesus paid our punishment for sin. When I receive punishment for my sins, it's not good enough to get me into the Next Life, but if I seek to put away my sins, then Jesus pays for them. But if I choose to be in a halfway house, neither correcting nor forsaking nor minimizing all my sins, then for what did Jesus die on my behalf? He's called a New COVENANT, a deal, and the deal is, I forsake sins, He pays their punishment. The thief on the cross was sorry for his sins, showing willingness to correct things. This is the sweetness. Choose the sugar, and watch God fill your life with a healthy replacement for your old, sinful lifestyle. Challenge Him on this, to see if He will deliver. Resist, forsake, and do the good. Test Him with this.

It was a Faked Assassination

The video below has a curious statement (1:44) from a Pennsylvania "swat team" from the neighboring county of Beaver. One swat-team member texted, "Someone [Thomas Crooks] followed our lead and snuck in and parked by our [police?] cars just so you know." What in tarnation does that mean? Someone followed police into the parking lot trying to sneak in??? WHAT? Someone trying not get caught by the police parks beside police??? WHAT? Is this a joke? If not, then doesn't that appear like some code work to alert the plotters that the crisis actor, the roof clown, the star of the show, has arrived to the site?

"Followed our lead" is what one says when the plan is to have someone follow you.

We were told he parked his bicycle on a lawn, and here according to Beaver he's driving to the site? [The week after writing here, it turned out it wasn't his bike.] Apparently, yes, but we were never to see this text. It means the bicycle must be a fabrication, not his. Why did they the plotters think they needed to put him on a bike? What relevance does this have to any needed part of the plot?

The time of the text was 115 minutes before the shots rang out. It appears he's texting a fellow police officer, not SS. The rifle-in-car part of the text messages seems perplexing, and the picnic-table part can be to relay to the ESU where the star of the show is sitting at the time. In other words, go fetch him and start the show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuDAozn4ubo

The swat team claims to have texted: "you see me go out with my rifle and put it in my car so he knows you guys are up there..." It makes no sense. Why should Crooks know where the snipers are just because this officer goes to his car with a rifle? It must be more code, planned in advance with both teams knowing the codes. That is, if the snipers see this officer going to his car with a rifle, it means that Crooks, or the Crooks look-alike, is ready to meet with the snipers.

His bike was reportedly parked on the north-west side of the two-story building, where there is a small parking lot. Peak Prosperity (youtube channel) pegs the picnic table right at the north-west corner of the two-story building occupied by ESU. Thus, the snipers were to meet the fake shooter at that hidden-away part of the premises.

This text was not to be discovered; it blows the entire hoax that the SS was conducting, and so the SS will deny that it knows of such a text, and major media might even ignore this very-important story. If I recall correctly, according to the storyline, Crooks was not yet suspicious at 4:26, yet this text discloses that he was part of the show.

When Beaver-county swat says it didn't meet with SS, which appears like a snitch against the SS, it may have been the plan not to meet, because the two teams may have been seeking to appear distant from one another when in fact they were coordinating to set up the hoax.

In the second minute of the video above, the Secret Service claims they got no message from the swat team. Conclusion we are to make? It was just a MISTAKE; police were not in on the assassination, they did their best, and the SS just struck out on a RADIO MISTAKE OR SOMETHING.

Achem, when you send the Secret Service a message about a suspicious person in this setting, you wait for a response to assure the message was received. You don't send it, then go your merry way. You also want to have the response to see what the SS might say to you, in case some action needs to be taken, and to possibly co-ordinate activities. We would fully expect the SS not to respond if it was staging the assassination so that it could play dumb in case the text was discovered.

These text messages were put out compliments of Chuck Grassley.

The Pennsylvania police commissioner, Christopher Paris, in the third minute, and into the fourth, of the video below says that on-site police sent the Secret Service a message concerning Crooks, about an hour before the shooting, to which the Secret Service responded, at least to acknowledge receiving the message.

The commissioner admits that the sniper's, when looking out one or more second-story windows, spotted Crooks on the ground. But the congressman, and all others, does a disservice to the people by not asking where exactly Crooks was on the ground when spotted, whether near the air-conditioning unit directly beneath the window, or out toward the lawn. There was not much of a view of the lawn, and probably none of the front parking lot, from the open window, and so there's a good chance that Crooks was spotted near the roof, and of course he wasn't carrying a ladder.

Then again, his being spotted by the snipers may be a falsification in order to create the "need" to make the snipers leave their post at the second-story windows, to go find him on the ground, and thus allow a good reason for the "failure" of police by abandoning watch over the roof. This is the storyline I prefer.

The conclusion we are expected to make is that, while the snipers and local police were looking around the factory lawn to see where Crooks was, they failed to find him because he was on the roof. The snipers are said to have left their window post(s) just five minutes before the shooting; they would have been out of the building, onto the lawn, in one minute flat, maybe two. They concocted an excuse for failing to stop his mission to the roof, and then concocted a reason as to why they didn't get back to the windows in time to see him on the roof.

The thing for congress to do is ask the snipers into a hearing to see whether someone directed them to leave their window posts. It seems pretty certain that, when snipers on a height see a suspicious person on the ground, they are not to decide on their own to go chase him down, if there are officers on the ground who can do it for him. As it turned out, there were revealed about a dozen security people beneath the second story, some inside, some outside already.

I've yet to see footage from people outdoors capturing these snipers outdoors. It first of all tends to suggest they never did go outside, but rather this could be make-believe to explain how they missed seeing the shooter on the roof.

Cheatle was treated harshly because she refused to hold the on-site boss responsible, but was instead covering for him/her. She refused to admit that leaving the roof unmanned was a violation of Secret-Service protocol. She put words into the mouth of the on-site boss that the low-slope roof, roughly one foot up per 20 feet across, was too dangerous for snipers to be upon. It was not her decision to make. She was fingering the on-site boss as making that decision, though I doubt the boss did make it. Rather, the boss knew this was a staged assassination, and for that purpose the roof had to be unmanned. It seems that Cheatle also knew that it was staged, or she would not have sacrificed her job on behalf of the on-site boss. Or, if she wasn't in on the plot, she would have demanded answers from the on-site boss for breaking protocol, and he/she would have been fired, which would have saved her job, probably.

Tolerate Curly's errors in the video below until 4:26, and spot how he has the bullet headed straight for the hydraulics of a crane or forklift, which he cannot possibly know. He's fixing / arranging his map and bullet trajectory so that the latter heads smack-dab for the hydraulics, because he's been fooled into thinking that it hit Trump's ear, and that it then hit the hydraulics. In other words, he doesn't really know that it's a straight line from the blood streak on the roof to Trump's ear to the hydraulics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI9uxEBlhUI

This video, of the hydraulics spewing some material, is new to me, though it was out 11 days ago as I write here on the 29th. I owned an excavator. I think I know how the hydraulic oil would act if something suddenly punctures a hose: the oil pressure instantly dissipates, because oil cannot be compressed in volume, and will therefore do a quick spit of low volume, not the long and high-volume spit we see in the video, which looks more like water than oil, expected if they fixed the scene for a faked oil gusher. The spray is best seen at the video's 3-second mark. Note how it suddenly ceases to spray, not expected if a system under pressure is going down to zero pressure. It should gradually spit less distance with time in the situation that we see, but the sudden ceasing that is seen looks like a water valve instantly turned off.

Nobody on camera was seen sprayed with oil, but, the evil is, the FBI can yet feign such a thing because it has a video-doctoring branch that alters videos after the events from videos taken by on-site helpers.

Plus, the bullet is not said to strike a hose, but the "piston," by which he means the piston housing, thick metal. I doubt that a bullet could penetrate the piston housing. Not only do we have the bullet barely grazing an ear as "proof" of a real bullet flying, but, wonder of wonders, it also struck the steel housing DEAD-ON. If it didn't strike dead-on, it would have deflected away, because the housing is round. The housing looks like it's only about three or four inches in diameter.

The machine is not holding any weight but the fork lift and the boom, meaning that a prolonged and harsh oil spray should NOT result. To make the scene look real, they caused the skid-lift at the top of the boom to come closer to the ground, as would be expected with a burst hydraulic system. When it stops moving toward the ground, the spray ceases. However, the weight of the skid-lift coming down should in no way cause such a large spray as what we are seeing, 20 feet or more. That sort of spray could be formed, maybe, by the first, split-second burst, but afterward, the spray should reduce in length to very much smaller, and quickly, especially as the bullet hole is considered a large hole (dissipates pressure fast). I would say that the speed of the boom coming down is so slow that the spit should be no more than two or three feet long. It should look more like a guy taking a pee (i.e. quickly arching downward). Probably, nobody, that the deep state can contact off the cuff, has seen what the burst of the piston casing looks like (because they don't burst).

The good thing about this video is that it discredits the idea that Crooks injured/killed others while shooting at Trump. In other words, the deep state did its best to feign the killing and injuries in line with bullets to Trump's position, but failed badly. It's been said (for example by Paramount Tactical) that the last five shots didn't hit any known thing...i.e. expected in a faked shooting. However, he's not of the opinion that it was a faked shooting.

In the video below, the thing that gives the police officer away as an insider is that he's looking up at the roof, but staying too long on this wrong side of the building. We're seeing him a couple of minutes or more after people in other videos, under the tree, were yelling such things as, "he's on the roof." They would still be yelling at this time, due to seeing this police officer right beside them, and saying something like, "over here, we can see him from here." But see how quiet the people are in this video as compared to the others when they supposedly saw the shooter on the roof. No second-story sniper appears in this video. You can go to the scene under discussion starting at 12:17:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSeQPwXg2Dk

The soundtrack appears removed and replaced with another. One of the sure-tell signs that the stagers are adding a soundtrack is that they usually have profanity, and add drama too, in this case a shaky camera from someone seemingly very frightened. I suggest that this soundtrack was faked because the eight shots from Trump's mic gave the impression that there were two different guns, one for three shots, and another for the five shots. The purpose in this video seems to be to "assure" that the same gun fired all eight shots, for the sound of the shots is similar, as is their volume. See that? The FBI has a video-doctoring department that can alter storylines as needed.

Did you see the young people walking casually past the camera? Why were they not telling the cops that the shooter was seen from under the tree? Then, although this camera had nice, clear shots of the roof peak, suddenly, when it's time to add the soundtrack of the shots, the camera fails to be looking up to the roof peak, but of course. And all cops stopped looking up to the roof by the time the shots go off, so that their body cameras can't catch the roof scene, because there was no shooter up there. They didn't need one. If there was shooter up there, they would have provided a scene of the shooter to prove that it was a genuine shooting.

After the gun shots, by the time that the camera gets a view of the peak where the blood stain was at, the shooter is already shot dead, meaning that it's safe to capture a roof view again, at this time, because they had the dummy and rifle well over the peak, out of eye sight from where the camera is situated.

Jovan Pulitzer, on a Stephen Gardner show of about August 3, who says he's investigating the blood scene, and waiting for the autopsy, claims that the FBI failed protocol on investigating a kill scene by washing the blood from the roof "within hours." What does it tell you? Why rush to wash blood if it's real blood? Pulitzer (= pro-Trumper) doesn't think it was fake blood, however, but that the FBI washed the blood fast because it can tell how a man dies, whether fast or slow, and thus can tell a little of how the man received the bullet(s). I didn't hear him explain the lack of splatter on the roof, or lack of stain at the peak.

Rowe, New Chief of the SS

On July 30, Ronald Rowe, the acting SS director to replace Cheatle, appeared in a senate hearing, and told that Crooks climbed the HVAC (air-refreshing) pipes. By this date, the plotters had plenty of time, but maybe not enough as yet, to decide how best to frame the climb to the roof. He's not being specific as to which unit.

At the start of this video, the acting director seems to be entering into the record that the FBI and the SS worked in tandem on this project's assessment of dangers, and due to this, he speaks with some anger aimed (faked anger of course) at local police for not covering the roof better. He also claims that SS met with local police before the event, whereas we saw above that a swat team (from Beaver, PA) appeared on public video to imply that no pre-shooting meetings took place with them included.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T4XcG-b5b0

When Rowe argues that the shooter's body could barely be seen over the peak, that's why we can question how the sniper on the barn got him in one shot through tree branches. Rowe is insinuating the point that SS could not be sure whether this head popping above the peak was an assassin versus a police sniper. And this is how the plotters plotted to get away with this event, how they planned to frame themselves innocent for not taking a shot earlier. But this excuse doesn't fly unless the plotters also claim they had no in-time / early radio communication with police, exactly what Rowe claims later in the video.

At 3:20 of the video, the picture tends to imply that the fatal shot to Crooks came from the other barn, not the one with the tree between it and Crooks. The other barn has the longer shot.

Keep in mind that the FBI and SS did not feign this assassination for the benefit of Trump's election desires, but for other political scores, one of which is to frame Republican voters as terrorists. Other political ambitions are for gun control toward a globalist tyranny, and for fomenting civil strife between parties that better aids the globalists in keeping tyrannical controls. It is not mind-boggling to think that the FBI purpose in a feigned assassination of Trump, after a string of other baseless accusations and threats to him, is for fomenting an actual civil war allowing the government to step in with tyrannical solutions.

In the 4th minute above, the congressman says that he was told that Butler police did NOT have "direct" radio communication with the SS. Is that not astoundingly incredible? At the early 5th minute, the congressman asks about the radio communication from local police to the SS at about 30 seconds before shots rang out. He's asking why the SS did not get Trump off the stage in those 30 seconds. This forces Rowe to say that the last-minute communication got "stuck" (5:21), and was therefore not received in time to warn people at the stage.

Got stuck? What is that? Is he implying that the radio communication was not direct to the SS, but went first to another party that then relayed to SS? If this is what he's saying, then SS needs to explain why it did not have instant and perfected communication with all police teams after it farmed out roof responsibility. Blame for the shooting thus goes square on the SS person who did not assure direct communication, and if direct communication was a standard protocol (which one would think to be a requirement), then the SS person who broke protocol in this regard is the person that Rowe is throwing under the bus. Congress now needs to hear from that person.

Then, at 6:00 minutes, Rowe makes the wildest claim that zero messages from anyone made it to SS concerning a man with gun or man on the roof. He's now not blaming slow / stuck-up communication, but is speaking to what was decided beforehand should be the plot: no police discovered that Crooks was on the roof prior to the shooting. He's not saying that radio alerts concerning a man on the roof somehow failed to get through, but that none were sent by police. Police were to be totally oblivious to a man on the roof.

They cannot get away with the claim that radio communication was defective, because this is the sort of excuse given in every false-flag event where, for example, local cameras suddenly get broken at the time of the event. Nobody buys this trash anymore.

In the video below, 5th minute, Rowe is asked when the barn-roof snipers first saw the shooter on the roof. Rowe claims that it was only when the shooter started shooting. This is a logical part of the hoax. The team would have planned, before the shooting, to say that the shooter was invisible behind the roof peak, to provide an explanation as to why he wasn't shot earlier, or why SS did not contact the ESU team overlooking the roof, to inquire as to who was on the roof. This tends to explains why they feigned a police officer getting to the roof to see the shooter with gun, at 6:11 pm (seconds before shooting), so that he could radio the SS in order that the latter could have the reason to lock sights with the roof in preparation for the miraculous killing. See that?

Yes, I see it. If the barn sniper could not see the shooter on the roof, he wouldn't have reason to lock his gun on the roof in order to shoot there, six seconds after Crooks fired his first shot. But if some officer happens to radio the barn sniper just in the nick of time, there arises the opportunity to shoot the shooter before he does too much damage.

The reason we're told that a policeman radioed at 6:11 instead of 6:10 is so the SS wouldn't have enough time to get Trump off the stage. I get it. The barn sniper had only to yell, "get Trump off the stage," or he could have fired his gun as a warning, as soon as he got the radio message, but, as we can see, the plotters fixed this made-up story so that there wasn't enough seconds to warn Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGBN7gZIEfo

The problem is, nobody ever said that this policeman radioed the SS. In my recollection, this officer himself did not say so, nor did the man who claimed to help the officer to the roof. It could be that the stagers were holding this radio call up their sleeve, to be played on the table only if needed. Or, this radio call is purely a fabrication because it's so badly needed. In either case, the officer must be a fake, part of the staging. We find news of his supposed radio message here in the 18th minute, claimed not by himself, but by Wray's deputy, Paul Abbate.

The ninth shot, the one that reportedly hit Crooks, came 5.9 seconds after the first shot. And the eighth shot came 5.4 seconds after the first shot. Does this look like reality to you? These times, measured from the shots on the audio of the shaky camera at the side of the glass building, were measured by sound equipment belonging to the youtube channel, Paramount Tactical, yet, in this video, anyway, he doesn't do a comparison with the shots at Trump's mic, perhaps because he knows the timing there does not perfectly match. There are now three audio versions of the shots, wherefore we expect someone to do a comparison of all three to see if the timing jibes.

The timely timing of the radio message was so miraculous that the hoax could go forward for lack of time to warn the SS at the stage, but, thanks to the message, it took place with limited bullet damage at the stage and in the seats. So, God saved the SS men huddled around Trump, but not Comporatore, with this last-minute miracle. I'm not buying it. The timing was such as to explain why no SS men/women were shot. In the hoax's pre-planned plot, the shooter had to be shot immediately upon firing his rifle to explain why nobody else on stage has a wound. By some further miracle, nobody knows where the bullets went for the last five shots. Naive reporters can now say that Crooks just shot into the air a round of five bullets, and they can guess as to why he did so.

The sound equipment from Paramount Tactical found that an 11th bullet was fired some 10 seconds after the ninth that hit Crooks, which is difficult to explain. He doesn't try to explain it in the video I saw. That last shot was softer in sound than the others.

The less damage on the stage or seats, the easier to stage the hoax, yet the plotters wanted some damage to "prove" that bullets were fired. If Trump's ear was all that was hit, people would ask whether there were any bullets fired at all. But if they feigned a funeral, and showed the dead man being carried away, you can see how this plays well to the hoax. There is but one video of Corey Comporetore being carried away, because all the people around him were told not to take cameras out, tending to show that the plotters packed those particular bleachers with paid crisis actors. Nobody showing on the one camera, the one showing the dead fire fighter carried away, had their camera out, which just cannot be a genuine situation.

The return fire from snipers would look over-miraculous if the shooter was stifled after taking only one shot, and so they faked more than one shot. There was evidence in my last update that police took the five shots out a window, into the air, afterwhich he or someone else went up the white ladder to plant his empty shells on the roof.

Nobody fulfilled the planting of three more shells until after a sniper stopped rolling his camera to allow for the planting. While standing over the dummy, he stopped rolling his camera for about 12 minutes after someone near him counted only five shells, which was heard on the audio. And so it seems that someone told the sniper to stop rolling in order to get three more shells planted beside the dummy, and he was told additionally to do a re-count, on camera, to establish publicly that there were indeed eight shells. I call phony baloney.

Here's Rowe being asked who the on-site boss was. Unfortunately, and even suspiciously, Hawley lets Rowe of the hook too easily on why the SS had no sniper on the glass-factory roof. Rowe gives a fully-bogus answer amounting to word salad, and Hawley just lets him go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLfk6EtGve4

That roof was as far as a typical neighbor would be where both neighbors have a house just 225 feet from the shared property line. It was the responsibility of the SS boss to put a man on the roof, or to at least keep watch over it at all times. They wouldn't farm out that responsibility purely trusting the police, but, a few minutes before Trump gets to the stage, the SS would contact the police by radio to make sure it has a man covering the roof. The two teams "failed" together on this because it was a faked assassination.

In the video above, it's expected that Rowe refused to give Hawley the name of the on-site boss. However, while the excuse is that the name should not be made public, it can be given to congress privately. Congress should have requested this name more than two weeks ago by phone and letter, and maybe it did, for Hawley says above that he knows the SS people who were in charge. The video above can do no better to reveal that Rowe is a snake seeking to save the jobs of those in charge, who knew it was a fake shooting, it's delightful to see him squirm, but we may get thrills if and when they are forced to step down. Participating in a faked shooting, yet they get released for botching a real assassination attempt. BEAUTIFUL.

Before the 7th minute arrives, Hawley forces Rowe to blame local police for not being on the glass-factory roof, with Rowe implying that the SS asked police to be on the roof. Chances are, local police will have something to say in response, but it has already said that the summer heat was not the reason it wasn't on the roof. The why not? We still don't know who posted the snipers at the windows, but if it was an SS boss, then it seems the snipers were warned or asked (which?) not to be on the roof. The Congress has yet to question the ESU in the second-story windows, or the Butler police. If the snipers were not privy to the hoax, then they had to be STERNLY WARNED not to be on the roof (or the hoax would fail).

Rowe admits that the SS declined drones from local police, meaning local police is looking fairly righteous here. Not everyone in local police forces was privy to this hoax, of course.

Rowe's responsibility was to call the on-site bosses, and drill them to the ground until they gave a clear picture of what happened, yet he pretends to know nothing until OTHERS do the investigation, and of course these others are fellow insiders whose first job is to stall until congressional anger and public concern has died down. "Investigation" is how the FBI always rolls, to cover for its complicity.

By another congressman, Rowe was asked why the second-story snipers left their posts at the windows, and Rowe pretends he doesn't know. Yet it's his job, on day one of taking over from Cheatle, to find the answer to that all-important question, and to have it ready for congress in this hearing. He's deflecting because he's covering for the SS. Everyone wants to know why the snipers abandoned the windows. Which department gave that order? What time was it given? Let's hear the radio conversation(s) where that order was given. Yet Rowe has nothing to share with congress? CONTEMPT. Guilty with the party.

Question: why did congress ask this Rowe character to answer questions rather than the on-site boss who would know far more than Rowe?

Rowe had a prickly cactus in his throat when the topic of a weaponized drone came up (by congressman Cornyn), where he had no response as to how Trump might have been protected by a drone outfitted with bullets. The FBI wants to make Crooks look like he flew a drone (which I don't believe he did), but this backfires on the SS for not putting out protective measures against drones on the day of the rally.

Rowe tries to hide behind the SS having only a "suspicious person" reported to them by local police, as if it's not enough to make it a concern of the SS. However, it behooves the SS to keep in touch with local police on the status of that person, and so the SS had some reason to ask the window snipers to go look for the suspicious person, to report back his movements. In other words, as makes sense to me, the SS asked the window snipers to leave their posts, and the boss of the snipers complied.

How often should the SS desire a status update on the suspicious person? In a genuine situation, it should be on-going updates if only to alleviate any fears. Police should never have lost site of Crooks because the area he was floating in is SMALL. This area did not have high-people density. As it was impossible to lose sight of Crooks around those buildings, the Butler police feigned loosing sight of him. Status updates on this person is expected often before Trump took the stage, and for every second that he was at the stage. The SS should have had a working open channel with the local police, the ESU snipers at the windows, and the swat team from Beaver. It was SS's responsibility to be in touch with ALL, once it was notified of a suspicious person.

The FBI wanted the shooter equipped with a range finder to help "prove" he was attempting to assassinate Trump, but this backfired on Security because it yet allowed the "shooter" into the vicinity of the stage after finding his range finder.

Rowe appeared in congress with Mr. Abbate, whose timeline of events included: "Recently-discovered video from a local business showed the shooter pulling himself up onto the AGR building rooftop at approximately 6:06 pm." No details are shared on how he got up, but how convenient that such a video was "discovered" to take focus away from the white ladder. Now that the time of 6:06 has been committed to by the FBI, we want to know how much earlier the window snipers went to seek Crooks out, and why they did not find him -- in that SMALL, sparsely-peopled area -- from that time until 6:06. We can expect this camera from a local business to show these snipers outdoors, for it's illogical that the snipers looked only on all sides of the building but not on the side that this camera captures.

In order to capture Crooks climbing the roof from the HVAC units, this camera from a nearby business had to be pointed eastward toward the west wall of the glass factory, and so this camera would capture the tree underwhich the people were saying they saw a man on the roof. Plus, that business camera would not only capture him climbing to the roof, but show what he first did when on the roof. Do you think the FBI will release it? I strongly doubt it because I don't think Crooks could get to the roof by that means.

On the same day that Rowe "testified," Pat Young, the head of the Beaver country swat team said he thought it laughable that the SS should expect his team to be on the roof when SS didn't even contact the team to talk about it. Mr. Young was pointing out how crazy it would be to put a man on that roof without SS knowing about it i.e. the swat man could be shot by the SS in mistaken identity.

Then, appearing on this Fox show (at 1:37), Mr. Young reveals that his Beaver swat team was "assigned" to "the first two windows" of the second story, beside the open window manned by another team. It turns out that Beaver swat was part of the so-called, ESU. It now begs why the windows were closed. What kind of a joke is this? Did anyone order them to keep windows closed? What good are closed windows to snipers? This storyline keeps getting more ridiculous.

Now that Beaver swat is known to have been in the second story, it absolutely behooves the SS to meet with the team prior to the rally, because this was the most-sensitive spot aside maybe from atop the water tower (another suicide mission). Besides, when meeting with all units is the time to establish radio channels that all can use.

The Fox video above (at 2:04-15) tells that "local officials," by which I think she means Butler police, claimed that SS did not ask it to be on the roof. BANGO. Rowe claimed (when questioned by senator Roger Marshall) that it spoke with Butler police before the rally, and here we learn that there was no request to be on the roof, and moreover only one of the three windows overlooking the roof was open at the time of the shooting. Which team was assigned to that window? As Rowe says (with Roger Marshall) that Beaver swat was working with "Butler ESU," we can assume that Butler police was at the open window.

The deputy director of the FBI was forced to say that local police first saw Crooks on the roof at 6:08, which gave at least two minutes for police to contact SS to say, "man on roof, get Trump off the stage." Yet Rowe says that no such warning came from police. The deputy director then says (when questioned by Mike Lee) that the first police sighting of Crooks with a rifle was at 6:11:03, and this must be the bogus claim that some police officer got onto the shoulders of another man to take a peak on the roof, then fell down to the ground and hurt himself, but, according to Rowe, was able to radio SS in the nick of time to keep the shooter from shooting more than eight bullets. Who was this "hero"?

However, the way in which Abbate puts it, the hero did NOT radio SS, and Abbate doesn't explain why not, nor does he explain what Rowe meant by the radio call getting stuck so as to take up more precious seconds. If you want to see Abbate on that deflection, watch from 6:07 to 6:37, where he says that the officer's radio message was not relayed to the SS, but does not tell where the message went, probably because telling this would cause some damage to the storyline, especially if there really wasn't a message from the make-believe "hero":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xb2eoSPd-o

The FBI on Wednesday of this week said that, most-likely, Crooks had his rifle (in two pieces) in his backpack, but this is injury to police, because it's another failure for not checking his bag even after he became a "suspicious person." It's more evidence that the shooting was staged.

Peak Prosperity

I'm not familiar with the youtube channel, Peak Prosperity, where this is indication of a prosperity gospelite. He's covering most of the bases, not afraid to theorize openly that the SS could have been involved in an attempted assassination. He shows the pros and cons, but does not entertain that videos belong to, or are doctored by, the deep state. Of his four theories, none in a faked assassination. There are going to be people who think that Trump would never do such a thing, and also pro-Trumpers who won't sacrifice their pro-Trump audience to front such a theory even if they see evidence for it.

Note the excellent revelation of his 6th minute that SS had fundamentally covered areas around the stage that were much further than the glass factory, yet DID NOT include that factory as a fundamental danger needing emphasis, a clear piece of evidence of foul play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA7rOqUMwoo

However, starting in the 10th minute, he offers a theory in which the gun is turn-able on its side to explain how some of the shell casings popped over the peak of the roof. According to the official storyline, anyway, the shooter was hurried, afraid of getting caught, and so he's not going to go from an upright gun to a sideways-positioned gun from shot-to-shot, for the scope is only on the top. Nor will anyone turn the gun sideways in a hoax shooting. A sideways positioned gun is only when absolutely necessary, and the ridge of the peak here is about five inches high, not requiring a sideways gun.

However, in order for the plotters to explain the empty shells on the wrong side of the peak, this picture of this potentially turn-able gun may have been replaced (by the plotters) into the original scene. Has it ever occurred to us that if we download a photo or video owned by the deep state, the latter can replace anything showing in it even though it's on our hard drive or alternative drive, without our permission? It's possible that the deep state can order an altered image to go out to everyone who has it on their computer, and to resave the image with the alteration. Just a thought.

At 18:30, look at how many security guards there were for this one rally, at least 34, not including Butler police. Where in tarnation were they all? Later in the video, we discover many of them around the glass factory, which destroys the official storyline that Security didn't know of the "suspicious man" on the roof in time to get Trump off the stage. Shortly after 18:30, the speaker points out a picnic table near the north-west corner of the two-story building, which we assume was where Beaver swat saw him.

Shortly after 20 minutes, Peak Prosperity focuses on the "Stewart film," but where it's a stabilized version of the vastly-erratic video. However, as I think this is a deep-state video, I don't think it was erratic to begin with, but that the deep state made it erratic with some software in its doctoring department. The profanity we hear is one piece of evidence that this is a deep-state production. It seems the deep state likes disgusting language, and wants the world to believe that profanity should be the norm.

One of the profane guys says he saw a "big poop of hair go up," "evidence that Crooks was shot, you see. The deep state doesn't play with videos for no reason.

At about 24:08, though the viewer may not realize, we see a squad going into the narrow alley between buildings, where the white/silver ladder was propped up, from which I think they staged the rooftop blood stain and dummy. That scene is repeated just before 35 minutes. At 24:20, we see what should be some SS people coming, yet the guys bringing the black ladder are not yet arrived, proving that the white ladder was there first. At 25:08, some man in suit apprehends the cameraman, making us believe the cameraman is not deep state, exactly why he was apprehended, to fool viewers. He was doing nothing illegal, and so when you hear that he was arrested, baloney.

By the way, I did see a video, finally, that showed the white ladder clearly, and it did have red frames and black top, but with aluminum steps. I have one of those, a little shorter, purchased at Home Depot. The FBI says the shooter bought a Home Depot ladder, hmmm. Not really, but perhaps the FBI was plotting to claim that this red-white ladder was the shooter's ladder, and then they could somehow make it look shorter in some picture, about five feet tall. If so, what changed the plot?

You can see the red sides at the start of this video, though this video owner wrongly claims that the ladder wasn't there yet until after the shooting. He says this because that claim has gone around, of course. But the Stewart video tends to show that nobody put the ladder there after the shooting.

Look at the erratic part of the video in the 26th minute. A human is incapable of shaking a camera that fast up-and-down; it looks like software did it. It gets far more erratic than shown here; just go find the "original" video to see it.

Note the height of the roof on this wall, about 13 feet according to the size of the door that's about seven feet tall. The opposite side of this building, where the HVAC system is, must also be 13 feet tall, and so it's impossible for Crooks to have jumped on a three-foot-high HVAC unit to then get to the roof, for he could not reach 13 feet high, for with hands straight up, they only reach seven feet above his feet. The HVAC is about three feet from the building wall, moreover, assuring that he could not climb to the roof by this method, without a ladder of about five feet in length propped onto the HVAC unit. He didn't have the ladder with him, though the FBI might yet seek to fake a video where he has the ladder, if this issue of how he climbed to the roof becomes problematic in congress. The FBI has committed to the HVAC method of his climbing up.

Those two guys in the 26th minute are NOT clearing any windows. They know it's a hoax. They walk right by the windows.

Listen to the speaker from 26:27, because he makes the point as well as anyone could, that this event was staged due to police not knowing that people saw the shooter on the roof from around the far corner of the building. My claim is that people were not necessarily pointing to the shooter on roof a few minutes earlier, but that the two videos claiming thus were likewise deep-state productions, with altered/added audio to "prove" that Crooks was on the roof.

However, as far as the official storyline goes, we need to accept as fact that people, right beside, or at most a few feet from officers / guards seen in this Stewart video (pre-shooting scene starts at 1:00), had spotted the shooter on the roof, and were yelling to police to go get him. The police in this video look oblivious to those warnings, which is what spoils the official storyline of those people pointing. But if we claim that the people did point as a fact, then the officers in this Stewart video are feigning ignorance, as the speaker well points out.

In the 34th minute, we see Greg of the Beaver swat, the one who was supposedly in a second-story window, and he's now just standing at the foreground of the picture, seemingly unconcerned that a man is dead on the roof which he was supposedly guarding. When the picture starts to move around 34:29, he continues to stand there while other officers are eager to get on the roof. Why not him? Because he knows the plot. He knows it's not for him to be on the roof at that time. He's talking with about three men at the corner of the building, one of which leaves (about 34:43) to apparently motion the eager policemen into the alley that has the red-white ladder to the roof.

At 35:00, the speaker doesn't comment on the red-white ladder, though he mentions it. He doesn't comment on whether it was there before the shooting, or placed there immediately after the shooting. We saw no evidence, in the Stewart video, of the ladder planted after the shooting.

What are the chances that one of the people shot at the rally was recording a camera video showing Crooks on the roof beside Trump's head? Fox news released a segment of this video, about 2.5 minutes before the shooting. They say that this camera belongs to James Copenhaver, yet this camera appears too low in the seats to be his. By pausing the video below at 1:50, you see Copenhaver with his camera at his face, and so this picture could have been taken by the deep state to co-ordinate with the black-head scam, to "prove" that the black-head image is really from Copenhaver. However, note the two people some six feet or less to Copenhaver's front; their heads, at the least, should be in the black-head image, yet we see no body parts at all between the camera and the full-body picture of Trump (a couple of second earlier than 1:50).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKLlac5vBgk

This footage may thus have the additional purpose of implying that a downward shot from the roof could hit Copenhaver sitting higher than Trump's head.

Peak Prosperity does a half-hour show on this, but he doesn't entertain that the FBI has doctored videos on this scandal, and he's not open to the high possibility that Copenhaver is part of the hoax i.e. he was not injured. Imagine how small that black head you see would be in the real video, where the building is 500 feet from the camera. Do we think that, by the time that far-off scene is expanded as large as we see it below that we could get such a fairly-crisp picture of Crooks at his gun position? On a TV-news camera, no problem, but on a cell phone, I'm not so sure.

The glass factory looks like it's sitting in the back row of the audience. The building was enlarged to enter disinformation. This looks like a deep-state video, doctored to make it appear that Crooks is in a near-straight line from shooter to Trump to injured person...to "prove" that Crooks was the shooter. That's why the shooter is beside Trump's head. In reality, a shot from the blood stain to Copenhaver would not have passed by Trump's head as close as this picture suggests.

The black head that goes by the white background can be clocked at more than 15 miles per hour, a very fast run on a roof, but in a genuine situation, a shooter, especially on a low-slope roof, would be mindful of not pounding the roof so as to be heard below. In my mind, the black head has the obvious purpose of "proving" that Crooks climbed the HVAC unit to the roof, which is behind the black head.

However, Peak Prosperity thinks that Crooks is running on the neighboring roof, then crosses one of the shed roofs to the area where he shoots Trump. First of all, we have no evidence that Crooks is either the black head of the fuzzy character at the spot where they put the blood stain. Nor do we have evidence that these characters appeared on the roof when Trump is shown speaking a couple of minutes before the shooting. We cannot rule out that these characters were added to the scene by special software.

At about 8:50, he speaks to the possibility that Crooks is not on the neighboring roof. I would agree with his implication that, if the black head were on the roof from which Crooks supposedly shot Trump, we would see more than his head. Copenhaver's camera would be about as high in the bleachers as the bottom edge of this roof, and because the roof slope goes up only about two feet higher than the edge, we should see AT LEAST half of his body while running.

At 10:30, he claims about a 3.5-foot rise from edge to peak, which benefits his theory. He calculates the roof slope at about one foot up per 12 feet across, probably because this is one of the lowest roof slopes. He's correct to say that the building is 80 feet wide, which is 40 feet from facia-edge to peak. However, I was able to find that the rear wall of this building has siding with ridges every 12 inches, and I counted 40 ridges from edge to peak (that's how I found the building to be 80 feet wide). But, once we have a one-foot measurement at that wall, we can find that the roof slope is only one foot up per 20 feet across, for a total of a 2-foot rise, not 3.5.

The FBI did a poor job faking this scene, probably opting to show the all-black head only because it's easier to do than a full-color body above the waist. The FBI then relies on compromised people to circulate its storyline. And that's how the FBI gets away with its corruption, because nobody in big business wants to risk claiming that the FBI doctors videos to deceive.

If this was really a video from Copenhaver, and if he was not a deep-state operative, he would have had his video online in its entirety. It was Fox, I think, who first put the black-head scene out, but that's all it put out. Didn't Copenhaver reserve the right to air the entire video??? Why not? Did Fox get the clip from the FBI?

Where is the evidence that this man hated Trump so much he'd perform a suicide mission just to cancel his ability to become the next president? Why is Peak Prosperity such a good-little FBI pet? Why does he not entertain a faked assassination coming with faked video or still photos? Has he never heard of 9-11? Sad thing: Peak Prosperity is doing better than most video owners at exposing the problems with the storylines, and meanwhile he reinforces most of the storylines.

At about the 20th minute, he tells that the Secret Service guys on the two barn rooves should have spotted Crooks running on the roof. And indeed, there is video of those snipers looking directly to the glass factory at about the time the FBI has Crooks running on the roof. You see, the FBI often fabricates one video while assaulting its own storyline(s), maybe because there's too many cooks in the fabrication kitchen, but partly because it badly needs doctored videos to come out at certain times (= rush-rush) to curb some nasty storyline building up against it in the news.

The snipers were much higher than Copenhaver. They didn't see anyone running on the roof because there wasn't anyone running on the roof.

But if people are not interested in reporting on government-staged productions even when they can see one, because they know they will lose viewers, then they become interested in using an event like this one for $$$clicks. These video producers know that getting more clicks immediately by putting out risky data will bite them in the long-term rear when they are proven wrong about their claims, meaning that they are afraid of being wrong in their claims, and are therefore slow in jumping to pet-theory (valued / dogmatic) conclusions. Plus, shudder, to claim a faked shooting plays perfectly to the Democrat party's bid to win the next election.

But talking about the bullet paths and related details makes for big clicks, right, even when there were no bullets shot at the stage. And think about it, that if this was a real assassination attempt, unplanned by the SS but while the SS lets it happen like a golden opportunity, the SS becomes guilty of possibly killing its own men who huddle around Trump. Do we really think the SS would take that chance? We then find that a sniper takes out the shooter almost too quick for damage to be on the SS guards at the stage, though, having gotten eight shots, four or five of them could have been hit more than once.

Some therefore think that the SS planned the assassination with Crooks as the fall guy, with a real-good shooter planted where they don't want anyone to know. This can make sense of the SS stressing multiples "proofs" that Crooks did it. However, the guards huddling around Trump would need to trust that, after the first shot, especially if it misses, neither the real assassin nor Crooks would take more shots.

The theory that we can rule out is where Crooks is the deceived patsy who's convinced to take the real attempt all on his own. Are we then to believe that the SS went ahead with this plot without telling the SS guards whose role it was to pack in around Trump as human shields? There's no way any of them would have willingly taken that role if they knew there was a real assassination attempt about to take place by someone not their own, someone lured into a trap due to mental instability.

I'd suggest that the human shields knew that this was a faked assassination without Crooks on the roof, and with a fellow and trusted SS man taking the faked shots. If the shields didn't know, what would the plotters tell them after the shooting? "Well, we just used you guys and decided to let you get scared out of your tree, before telling that this was staged with no bullets."

So, therefore, the body shields were the ones who painted the blood on Trump's face, meaning that all of them were privy to the hoax. They wouldn't risk even one of them who was not privy to it.

On Thursday of this week, Peak Prosperity appeared on Paramount Tactical, and said, "I can smell BS really quick," yet when he saw that the SS guards huddled all around Trump wiped off a third streak of blood but left two on the face, we're supposed to believe he didn't smell a hoax wherein Trump is guilty of grand fakery??? Did he investigate how the blood got onto the face? Did he investigate the ear with blood to see if he could see a rip in the ear from a bullet? If not, how does he portray himself as a good / deep investigator if he rules out one theory altogether, the theory that, in this case, happens to be the truth? Peak Prosperity, and all others reporting the same things, who've delved deep into the information as it streams out, come off looking like useless jibberers.

Those who categorically reject a staged assassination are saying that SS sloppiness or laid-backness is because all guards wanted to see an assassination, and so they just let it happen, not planning it together, with the attempt unknown to them prior to the day. Yet it is highly unlikely that all four -- the SS, the Butler ESU, the Beaver ESU, and Butler police -- would all wink the same wink, as the event happens to be taking place on the day, with a rogue young guy (not usually a political animal) out to shoot the president who's had no serious beef with Trump, but is willing to get himself killed to kill Trump? Come on, smell the BS.

There was a 5th team from Washington, but I don't yet know what role they played, perhaps in the bleachers with camera work and faked injuries. It is easy to get away with a faked injury, even if a few people see it, because nobody will believe them if they risk becoming whistle-blowers. The deep state has ways to make them cower, look weird, or get buried (shadow-banned) on the Internet.

I didn't know until listening to Peak Prosperity on Thursday that the first shot at Trump was the one that reportedly hit a railing, but he doesn't ask whether this ear-to-railing shot was faked to "prove" that a bullet was indeed fired at Trump's head. See that? If the reality is a staged shooting with no bullets fired at Trump, the goal is to provide "irrefutable evidence" that bullets were shot. Duh. That way, people like me look stupid for claiming a hoax, but video owners making good money on their videos, or seeking to climb the youtube ladder to making good money, are not inclined to be labeled as stupid, or so anti-Trump to boot.

How easy is it to fake a bullet shot off of a metal railing? Just say so. That's all it takes. No camera shot of the railing is needed. The FBI can provide a fake witness to say he/she saw the bullet dent, or heard a ping off the railing.

And the "photo" of the bullet passing by Trump's head, which doesn't even pass by the top of his ear, could only be captured by a special camera that they say opens the shutter every 1/8,000th of a second. Don't we then ask how fateful it was that such a camera was fixed on Trump at that fateful moment? Don't we ask whether this claim of a special camera present is a phony-baloney claim to "prove" a bullet" was present? All the youtube hoax denier$ can now hide behind these "evidences" that there was indeed a bullet shot at Trump's head. The bullet path shown by the special camera has the bullet passing the lower ear. Does PP mention this to open a can of worms? Not that I've seen.

Why didn't this camera capture the other bullets? Just look around for them from shots taken by this special camera. Here's the photo, with bullet passing the lower ear. Why would the FBI goof like that? Maybe it's another case of too many cooks in the crock. Or, maybe it's not the bullet that hit the ear, yet if this one can be photographed, why not the one that hit the ear.

Or, maybe the FBI / SS provided sufficient evidence of a faked assassination, for court purposes in case the stagers ever end up in court charged with part-taking in a real assassination. But even while the FBI does this deliberate fakery-planting, yet the deep-dive investigators are too compromised to tell of it. This is the saddest truth, that anti-deep-state video owners are too compromised to cut the deep state into pieces, as it should be. sadly, the deep state can at times rely even on pro-Trump, money-maker youtube channels.

At 46:00 of the 2-hour video below, where Peak Prosperity is on Paramount Tactical, a new video is shown that appears like a deep-state production because the officer on this video can be overheard saying that the suspect is down. That's planted "evidence" of a shooter dead on the roof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNDeDgYurQ

At 1hr:02-03min of the video above, Paramount Tactical seems to be toying with a faked assassination attempt without coming right out to say so. PP then seems agreeable with him, at least in fronting the theory that Crooks was a staged gunman. Yet there is a difference in a staged gunman and a patsy who's to be part of a real assassination attempt. Whether or not a patsy shoots or hits Trump, he get's blamed for what happens.

Another way to spot deep-state fakery in videos is that they are often presented blurred, and so see the blurred video at 1hr:08min:13 where the main bleachers are shown at the moment of the shooting, bleachers stacked with actors, to be expected.

Pause at 1hr:08min:34 to see the far-left bleachers, where Comperatore was sitting. He's higher than Trump's head, and the latter (the head) is on a line that cuts across the center-height of the bleachers. The same should be true on the far-right bleachers where Copenhaver sat. Yet, go to 1:19:09 to see that Copenhaver is shown lower than Trump's head, thus making this image look like a doctored image...because there's no way that a camera is taking the shot from such a low height, near knee level, to make Trump appear like he towers over the top row of the bleachers. We can see that the camera is at least at head height.

The higher a camera goes, the higher the top bleacher seats appear in comparison to Trump's head. An vice-versa, the lower the camera to the ground, the higher Trump heads goes in comparison to the people on the bleachers. But that only works when the camera shot is taken from the FRONT of both entities, Trump and bleachers. Why can't PP see this problem in this image? Because, he either trusts that all videos are genuine without doctoring, or, if he doesn't want to get sued by claiming they are doctored, it makes him unreliable to report on this matter. Just do something else if you haven't the courage to speak the truth, PP.

PP is badly amiss at the 1hr:09min:19 image. Look at the downward trajectory that this image proposes if indeed the bullet went from Trump's ear to the railing. The trajectory is now coming from 500 feet in the air rather than from a 15-foot roof. Why can't PP spot that this image is doctored? He has hard evidence of it such that he would not be sued for saying so. Yet he fails his viewers, and Paramount Tactical fails to mention the problem while skirting around it. That's a dance.

PP goes back to his theory about the black head running on the neighboring roof, at 1hr:17min. He assumes it's Crooks head, and, okay, lets entertain that it was the Crooks look-alike. What if this look-alike was handed a dummy from his accomplices inside the second-story window, then planted it upon the blood stain? This way, there's little risk in being seen bringing a dummy to the red-white ladder along the front of the factory, where 24-hour security cameras could have spotted it.

Plus, he'd naturally be dressed just like the dummy so that, in case anyone saw him on the roof, the police could say, "ya, he was on that roof, then he got shot," no problem. But for the blood-stain fakery, needing only a small container like a paint can, someone could have risked it easily up the red-white ladder, explaining why the ladder was there. If indeed the Crooks look-alike was on the roof, he likely went up that ladder, and could then have gone to the window in preparation for the hoax. We might say that, when he got to the window, the guy said, "hurry, we're late." So he ran.

At 1hr:46min, PP mentions that there's an image with Crooks near the roof peak cradling his rifle with half the barrel across the peak. I've not seen that image, but do not think for a second that it's authentic because, duh, there's no blood at the peak. PP, at least, mentions the absence of what he expects in the shape of the blood stain, but Paramount Tactical jumps in and refuses to place suspicion on the blood stain.

I'm actually impressed with PP for pushing the problem with the blood stain, because it tells me he's considered a faked shooting. What I'm not impressed with is his not coming right out and stating it frankly. Once we're convinced that Crooks didn't get shot, we need to decide whether Crooks was up there, or whether it was a dummy. I'll even bet that the FBI has a computerized machine that can make a mask from someone's photo. Stick the mask on a dummy, and take made-for-TV photos.

In that discussion, which goes for about five minutes, Paramount Tactical did not mention one suspicious thing about the blood stain, suggesting he's antagonistic against the staged-assassination theory. In another video, he says he wonders why the SS didn't give Crooks an excellent scope, a better gun, if indeed the SS mounted an attempted assassination, yet he says exactly zero about the possibility that the SS goal was NOT to kill Trump. It therefore appears that he neither holds to a real assassination attempt by the SS, nor a faked one, though we can expect that, at times, he gives conspiracy-leaning viewers some bits of red meat while being too cozy with media storylines. He doesn't want to offend SS snipers, but maybe he's just being over-cautious. There's nothing wrong with open theorizing if the government is playing hide and seek with the people.

During the minute at 2hr:09min, PP implies that he does accept the possibility of doctored images when suggesting that Crooks' face, at the death scene, could be a little doctored. Paramount seemed off-balance by that statement. I haven't seen the unblurred image, though I've heard it's online. Youtube likely forbids it. In the blurred helmet-camera scene, one can often see past the blur to see ZERO red on the face. That's my expectation, and, also, I expect the FBI to paste some red on the face for at least one scene.

One video owner showed what looked like a plastic zip tie on Crook's wrist just outside of the blurred region, which assumes that both wrists were tied together. The one visible wrist was behind his back. If indeed it's a zip tie, it could argue for a real person murdered by those who planted him on the roof. Or, the zip tie could be pasted in to "prove" that it wasn't a dummy. Surely, if a dummy is used, the fakery team asks: how can we prove to the audience that this isn't a dummy?

The Excuse to Go Downstairs

In this video below, we learn that the wife of the Beaver swat man, Greg Nicol, was on the roof facing the dummy in the helmet-cam scenes. I've heard her voice on that camera. Can we imagine whole families signing up to be crisis actors? Greg is the one who left his window post, in charge of a chief fakery event.

New information, from ABC and shown at 12:20, includes Greg's story as per his leaving his post, though this may not turn out to be the official story. ABC strongly implies that Nicol went from window to window to follow Crooks on the ground, but we are not told which windows Crooks was spotted from. There was no need to go window-to-window on the south side only, because one could see the entire south side from any window there. By "shadowing" Crooks, ABC must mean that Nicol went from window-to-window past a corner(s) of the building, either from north-to-west window, or north-to-west-to-south, or west-to south.

It's from the west window that Nicol could spot the several people under the tree making a fuss toward someone on the roof. The deep state will want him to testify that he was not upstairs at the time of the commotion under the tree, for, obviously, he would then have gone to a south window to see him on the roof. The plotters needed a way to have him on the ground at the time of the commotion, some two minutes before the shots.

Nicol is not in the "he's-on-the-roof" / "they're-all-pointing" scene, the commotion scene, which I'll re-discuss below.

The problem with covering stories like this is that the deep state evolves the storyline day by day as best suits itself. They are as prone to falsifying information as a general in charge of a war. Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx2rOfKgDDA

In a faked staging, there was probably a way to contact command center without also sending messages to everyone involved, in order that the hoax be contained to those who were privy to it. This can predict that radio communication between guard teams was limited by design.

The video above has PP seeking to make sense of the window snipers. The deep state now has the problem of explaining why the suspicious act(s) seen by Nicol was not suspicious enough for Nicol's command center to convey to the big boss, the SS. We are being led to believe that it was only a little suspicious, and so, to be able to decipher whether this was a staged event, we need to know what the thing was that was a little suspicious. Surely, if there was such a thing, we would have heard of it by now, and so we can assume the deep state is busy fabricating / perfecting that suspicious thing.

We've seen Crooks' photo amongst photos which Nicol took and sent to his command center, but there's nothing suspicious about it. He's sitting there looking fine, not even with a sinister look on his face. he looks like he's at a picnic table, likely at the one on the north-west side of two-story building.

Can we guess why sending the suspicious message was part of the plot, to be later shared with the public. Because, the plot included a quick kill of Crooks, and for this to take place, SS had to be alerted to a potential threat at the glass factory. Thus, the SS snipers began looking at the factory, and were trained on it when the shots rang out. But for this picture to be viable for congressional / public consumption, there needs to be proof that Nicol's command center sent the suspicious message to the SS. There is evidence that the plotters wanted to keep the SS and Nicol's Beaver team at a distance from one another, as the public sees it, precisely because they were closely in cahoots with one another. Something alerted SS on the barn rooves before the police officer claims to have seen Crooks on the roof at the last half-minute.

With Nicol under duress, after the shooting, for being almost-solely blamed for the attempted assassination, he might just cave and point the finger instead to his boss, or even to the SS. For as long as he allows the news media to portray him as making the decision ALONE to leave his window post, he becomes the lone reason that Crooks was able to get shots off. Does Nicol want to go down in infamy to save his fellow plotters from incrimination?

At 12:20 of the video above, it's said that Nicol saw the people pointing the shooter out on the roof. It doesn't tell whether he saw this from a second-story window, or when he was outdoors looking for Crooks. It's to be assumed that the official report will say he was outdoors by then, because it plays better for the deep state in being timed later than seeing it from upstairs, and the trick was to make the sighting on the roof so late, coupled with "strokes of bad luck," that nobody was able to radio SS in time to get Trump off the stage. It plays out like a nail-biting movie, with a happy ending even.

At 12:20, we learn that Nicol has been pointing the guilty finger at "uniformed police," the most-lowly of the security teams, and not his boss in the hoax. He says that he expected police to go find Crooks after he messaged them about a suspicious person, suggesting that "central command" was not his boss, not the central command for the Beaver team. In fact, there were only five Beaver-ESU members on-site that day, with at least two in the two-story building, suggesting that the others were out in the Trump audience. Therefore, his message to central command was not to his Beaver fellows, but to Butler ESU inside the building. As it turned out, that building was stacked with police, suggesting that it was acting as "central command."

So, Nicol is subtly placing the blame on Butler ESU for not contacting the SS concerning his suspicious message, and so, whatever suspicious thing Crooks was doing, central command thought it not suspicious enough to convey, in good time, anyway, to the SS at the stage.

Rowe of the SS has taken all responsibility for the Nicol failure, yet the SS can subtly show that Nicol and his fellows were to blame by indicating how wrong it was for Nicol to leave his post without order from his boss. On the other hand, the SS cannot play that card very well if the SS was the one tasking Nicol to leave his post as part of the hoax. We are at the stinger of the hoax here, yet to learn who gets stung the most, or how further cards laid on the public table will tend to reveal that this was a faked assassination. At some point, we want Trump to be biting his fingernails, and, after that, we'd like him caught inescapably as part of the hoax.

The ABC report, as shared by PP above, does not tell why Nicol went down the stairs, but implies that he was frustrated by central command's not employing police officers to the outdoors. Yet, the Stewart video does show police outdoors looking up to the roof. There was not enough time for Nicol to even assess what command was doing on the first floor with his message. This is either his critical stab at saving himself, or ABC, in putting words into his mouth, is suggesting that Nicol is suggesting that he took it upon himself to go outside due to a police failure on the first floor. It's not a very good excuse; it looks bad on Nicol. We are not being given the real reason that he left his post, if he left his post.

At 14:50 of the video, the first statement in regards to the way Nicol interpreted the he's-on-the-roof scene is sufficiently ring-truthiness to keep us from incriminating him. On the other hand, we're left asking why he thought it important enough to fly down the stairs but then not take a few more steps to the south wall of his building to see what was taking place there. Instead, coming across the tree side of the building, he abruptly turns around and goes back to the door (north side) to go upstairs. Or so goes the ABC story.

I'm claiming that the audio part of the commotion under the tree did not take place. The entire scene was a staged event to "prove" that Crooks was on the roof. I can prove this.

Paramount Tactical is advancing the idea that the glass factory is about 4 feet lower in elevation than the ground at the stage Trump was. I've not seen evidence of this, and so you might want to peak at 15:18 of the video to see that, to the contrary, the barns in the background look lower than the glass factory on the right of the picture.

At 15:29, we see the Nicol photos of Crooks. The point of his sending the photos and related messaging (about a half hour before the shooting) is not to alert the team, but is for public dissemination, to convince us that Crooks was on-site. Crooks is not wearing his backpack here. We are to believe that he left it, with rifle inside, at his unattended bike...uh, duh, for any police officer to come around and check it, then throw him in jail for 20 years. NOT CREDIBLE.

We can start to glean the reason that the backpack is shown at his bike, though we have no evidence that it's his bike versus a deep-state plant as part of the hoax. We are left to conclude that, at some time after 5:45, he walks north-west to get the backpack, visible from both the west and north windows. He then comes back to climb one of the two air-conditioning OPTIONS, but because the bike is closest to the HVAC with low shed beside it from which a man can easily ascend to a roof, we may discover that climb upon this particular unit becomes the official story.

[Update August 7 -- By now, it's been confirmed that either the deep state changed its story about this being his bike, or someone else claimed to own it, who was on a news show making that claim. So, we now have the problem of: where was his backpack and rifle hidden? It wouldn't be a wonder that the deep state changed this story, so ridiculous to leave a rifle-in-bag in the open. To where did he walk to get his bag and rifle after his picture was snapped? The Beaver text at 4:26 says he parked beside police, suggesting his car. End insert]

However, with the falsified claim that Crooks bought a five-foot ladder that morning, it seems the plotters were keeping the HVAC option, at the factory wall, in case needed. They have not committed as yet to either option.

IMPORTANT. We can foist the argument, in playing along with their game, that nobody on the second story saw him walk to his bike (seen at 16:20), otherwise it would be public information by now. If someone from the second story saw him get his backpack, then return with it toward the building -- after he's already suspicious three times over -- yikes, it should have been in another suspicious-alert report, or, at least, it warranted the most-watchful eye yet.

See the problem here? Nicol claims that Crooks was suspicious on/near the north side of the building, but then Nicol seemingly disappears from one of the two windows from which Crooks can be seen getting his backpack. It, this storyline, makes Nicol look guilty of negligence, because it was his responsibility, and that of his partners on that floor, to keep eyes on the suspect from 5:15 onward, and especially after 5:45, out the north and west windows. His own warning to central command demands that simply follow Crooks, so easy to do with he and his partner with only three windows needed to peer out of. Yet ABC wants us to think Crooks was so fast-walking that the two snipers couldn't follow him, and thus lost him. NOT CREDIBLE.

Nicol, or his bosses on his behalf, now needs to argue that he had to go to the bathroom, or something, after 5:45. Yet there were at least two snipers on that floor at that time. Nicol's negligence is rich enough here that he will seek to protect himself from getting all the blame. Whether or not he's able remains to be seen.

In the timeline at 24:06, the first spotting of Crooks is said to be at 5:10 by Beaver swat. But this leaves out the 4:26 spotting by Beaver, we wonder why. It appears that Beaver ESU made this timeline, and left out its very own text at 4:26. The omission can act as more evidence that this text was codework to kick-off the hoax. That is, this text must not be known or seen by anyone in law-enforcement, country-wide, because it can be gleaned by them as codework, alerting that the star of the show had arrived on-site with police protection.

Yes, the star of the show entered the parking lot with a police car leading the way. If there was any trouble in his getting in, due to someone else, the police in the car was to assure he got in. That's what I'm seeing. The 4:26 text alerted Nicol that the stooge was on stage and ready to pose for the photo.

The timeline reveals, or at least claims, that the photos of Crooks were taken at 5:14, 17 minutes before he looked through his range finder. Yet we see no reason that Crooks was suspicious enough to photograph. We can glean that the photos are made-for-TV "evidence" that Crooks was the assassin, i.e. there's no sense in our seeking anyone else, or the FBI seeking whoever else the shots may have been fired from.

At 24:12, we can verify that central command was "Butler 4 Command Frequency." We also learn of a different "Beaver ESU Group Command". Both were messaged shortly before 5:45, and so the Butler and Beaver ESU people in the stage area should have received these messages with the range finder being the most-pressing concern. Somehow, and we know how, these messages eluded SS command. We know how, because both command centers above were privy to the hoax, and the plot included: don't message SS with any alerts. The SS wanted to remain, not only blameless, but blind to the threat to justify not pulling Trump off the stage.

At 6:00, there is made-for-TV hoopla in the command center(s) in regard to Crooks' "direction of travel". Which way did he go, which way did he go? Like PP says, there were over a dozen officers in and out of the building, plus plain-clothed guards outdoors, and here, as late as 6 pm, they played like they still didn't know where Crooks was??? SAUSAGES. NOT CREDIBLE. Aside from his getting his backpack, he was always some 30 feet or less from the building, and there was never a big crowd that close to the building. Most of the people were along the fence, getting ready to watch Trump.

And by the way, who gave these people permission to be on the factory lawn? They were trespassing, were they not? Not if they were in invited. Am I suggesting that everyone in there was an actor, or privy to the hoax? Why not? If the deep state has crisis actors, why not general actors whose job is simply to stage a crowd? This can explain why they needed a police car to escort Crooks into the parking lot, because police were probably assuring that wrong eyes didn't get in.

Still at the Beaver timeline, the claim is that, at about 6:05, Crooks has a backpack on, and is moving toward the Sheetz gas station, which, PP says, is where Dave Stewart works who supposedly secured the Stewart video. Part of Stewart's video, with the timer showing around 5 pm, has police asking people to leave the fence area, because they were trespassing. So, yes, the plotters apparently cleared the area before the crisis actors appeared. This early scene argues for Stewart not being a part of the insiders, unless we can come up with a reason as to why the plotters want the public to know that the place was being cleared of the general public. A good reason: police plotters wanted to show that they at least tried to clear the area, but were unsuccessful.

It doesn't say who spotted Crooks with his backpack, but as this has the potential to let Nicol off the hook for negligence, it could be a fabricated sighting for that purpose. For, we are not told that he was seen walking to his bike to get the pack, only that he already had it on "at picnic tables" by the time he was spotted.

Keep in mind that this timeline was made public after many days, as much as a couple of weeks after July 13, and should therefore cater as best as possible against the going conspiracy theories.

If the snipers on the second story saw him with backpack on, then they appear responsible enough to keep eyes on him, yet may appear irresponsible enough not to radio it in to SS, except that Crooks is portrayed as walking (but not riding) to Sheetz, which happens to be away from the stage. In other words, there seems to be some manufacture of some relief in the nerves of the snipers, for Crooks appears to be leaving the premises, and thus can be portrayed as no longer a concern enough for a radio message to SS. See that? Therefore, we don't really know whether he did walk toward Sheetz, or whether this was a good-for-plot fabrication.

And now we can realize why they didn't claim to see him at his bike, picking up the backpack, for then there would be no nerve-relief manufactured, because he was WALKING away to Sheetz, not riding away, and therefore he was not necessarily indicating a permanent disappearance from the premises.

Besides, Trump had already started to speak at 6:03, and so the snipers had no good reason to assume he was leaving the site at 6:05, since they also had to assume he came to hear Trump, in which case Crooks becomes red-hot suspicious for walking away just as Trump starts to speak. Yet the SS was not notified of this even though the second-floor snipers knew more than anyone else that the backpack could have a two-piece rifle or heavy-duty pistol. If they were going to assume anything, they were required to assume he had a weapon in the backpack, especially as it was they themselves who labeled him suspicious.

The deep state was not going to tell us why Nicol went downstairs, but this timeline, thanks to Chuck Grassley, reveals a Beaver claim that, at 6:06, Nicol went downstairs. We therefore glean that the trigger to make him do this was the claim that he or his partner saw Crooks with the red-hot backpack, and so the Beaver timeline makes it appear he decided to leave his post on his own authority, making him the lonesome guilty party that almost resulted in Trump's death (as the storyline sees it).

Will Nicol stand for this? Will he take the brunt of the responsibility without becoming a whistle-blower? How can he become a whistle-blower when he's guilty of taking part in the hoax? Well, it wouldn't be the first time that a guilty party turned coat on his partners when the latter finger him/her. But that happens only if some very-bad fate looms.

The timeline does not say that Nicol or his partner saw the backpack on Crooks at 6:05. Beaver is leaving an opening here for allowing it to be some character at the lawn. The timeline therefore doesn't necessarily play to Nicol being triggered by the backpack to the point of leaving his post. In reality, he may have been ordered to go down by a Beaver boss, you see, only Beaver doesn't want to give details of such a thing, but would rather make Nicol appear guilty all his lonesome.

But there is another possible reality. Beaver seems to be keeping itself from incrimination by entering nothing between 6:06 and the shooting. It's as though Beaver doesn't know anything of what Nicol did when downstairs, or when he returned upstairs. BLANK. TAKE ME TO COURT to find out. TORTURE ME, but I'm not talking. The possible reality is that Nicol never went down at all. It could be a fabrication intended to explain why Beaver swat didn't protect the roof.

The timeline says that Nicol went down to speak with "patrol" on the first story, but never does it say he went outdoors. According to ABC he himself claimed he was outdoors toward the south of the building, where the finger-pointing took place toward the roof, yet the Beaver storyline is that Crooks went north toward Sheetz. CONTRADICTION, because we expect Nicol to go north, looking there to see where the suspect may have been.

You can pull my teeth, says the Beaver, but I'm not talking. I'm not telling why patrol didn't go out en-masse looking for Crooks at exactly 6:07 at the north side of the two-story building. My job is to fell trees, says Beaver, not to snitch on my partner, the NAZI SS. I'm going to let Nicol take the fall on this one. He can be replaced by the time we need another faked assassination.

We can be sure that if patrol went out en-masse to look for Crooks by 6:07, Beaver would have put it into the timeline, because it looks good on Beaver. As this incriminates patrol, we need to hear its side of the story to protect itself, and we might just hear that Nicol did not go down to speak with patrol.

More Paste Jobs

Let's go to the finger-pointing video below, where we see the scene about the time that Nicol claims to have been outdoors. The camera in this video either misses Nicol's window on the west side, or leaves it out, probably by design, possibly cropped out. We see no southern windows. We are usually told that BEAVER had the two south-side windows to post, but who else but this Beaver team would also have had the adjacent west- and north-side windows?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kcjh7SN6h8

The first thing to note in this video is how it shows people at the fence at the very start, then drops to the ground while panning left, then comes up again to show people along the fence further away, thus leaving out a shot of some people along the fence.

At five seconds, we see a police officer walking to the corner of the glass factory en route to its south side. He's walking away from where the shooter is on the roof??? He's not on a phone or radio. He's not running to the front door. He's not running to arrest the man on roof. PROOF OF FAKERY. It's proof either that the officer is privy to the hoax, or that there was no audible commotion about a man on the roof.

By the way, at six seconds, directly below the roof peak, we see a seven-foot door showing that the peak is about 15 feet tall.

At six seconds, a man all in black is looking toward the action, where the man is supposedly on the roof. He sees another person walking toward the action to see what it is. He can be seen again at :17, though now he's walking away from the action. The impression I get is, ho-hum, and he's even got hands in his pockets as he meanders to the underside of the tree to take a look. He's not the only one looking, and so it appears that this scene was staged to prepare for audio insertion that "proves" a man was on the roof. That is, people pointed and looked toward the roof, but there's proof of no audible commotion.

At 31 seconds, we can make out five uprights on the building under the roof. They are steel columns from end to end of the building, with the first and last column at each building corner. The feet of the man on roof can be made out, at best, at the middle column, meaning he's showing roughly at the middle of the 140-foot-long roof. The front-side shed where his backpack lies, and where his blood stain shows, in aerial photos, is above the fourth column from the camera, or about one column past his feet. I've been able to calculate (from the Stewart video) that there's 35 feet between two columns. He's clearly not above the fourth column. Having said that, how do we explain Crooks supposedly walking some 35 feet from his backpack, toward the middle of the roof, and then laying down there? Nonsense. It's a bad paste job.

Not only is the zoom-in on his body blurred, but the BEIGE siding (it's white in reality) looks so bad (can't even see the siding between columns) one would think the picture is taken, not from 150 feet away, but from a satellite. From a satellite camera 20 years or older.

Long and the short of it: this video doesn't jibe with the video supposedly taken by Copenhaver, where the black head races across a white background to about the spot where the paste-job here is lying on the roof. Was he all puckered out, needing a nap halfway across the roof? Prove fakery at any one spot, and the whole gig becomes open to fakery. If the black head is racing on the neighboring roof so that Crooks was forced to come to his shooter's roof 35 feet from the front of the building, why was he lying down 70 feet from the front of the building?

You can prove that the video has a paste job by starting at 31 seconds at youtube's 1/4 speed. Wait for the weight of his body to be on his hands and knees. At that time, only the knee cap is invisible below the roof line, yet when it comes to his arm at the same scene, about five of its inches is below the roof life, meaning it's a poor paste job. But even if you think that's a debatable or weak point, just hit the go button to see nearly his entire body sink into the roof at 33 seconds. How can only the knee cap, about an inch of body depth, go below the roof line when its resting on the roof sheeting, yet in other parts of the scene, six or more inches of the body sinks below the sheeting? FAKE. It happens again at 45 seconds, this time with only his ankles above the roof line at the body's deepest depth dive. BAD PASTE JOB.

This video can tend to expose that the plot had been to get Crooks up on the roof from the HVAC unit seen at the lower part of door 12. But the Beaver timeline may be seeking to change the location of the roof climb just because public opinion has doubted that Crooks could get on the roof from the unit in this video.

There is what looks like a horse with flag at the end of the 4th second of the video above, located at the top-right of the image. The best way to find it is to set youtube at quarter speed. Then, at 19 seconds, the man in all black comes into view, with a small-looking person likewise in black to his front. I think it's roughly at that scene where he's seen (from the opposite direction) at :59 and 1:00 minute of the Stewart video below, to the right of the horse's arse. As the shots ring out at 3:02 below, the horse at 1:00 minute is seen 2:02 minutes before the shots ring out (unless this video has footage clipped out).

Is more than two minutes enough time for police to call SS and get Trump off the stage? Yes, but it doesn't matter. The guy was not on the roof. If he was, and if the deep state wanted to show he was, we would have a proper video. We don't. All videos showing him on the roof are bogus / problematic. And so when we see a police officer above, walking away from the roof commotion, it's because there was no commotion. He's likely the policeman seen at 1:00 below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe1U9O3Fm18

I mean, police saw a suspicious character from at least 85 minutes before the shooting, and here at some three minutes before the shooting there was spotted a man on the roof, as the storyline goes, and yet the policeman seen at 1:00 is dancing like an doh-doh-idiot on the south side of the building when he should have been on the north side pulling out his gun...instead of running away to the south side, doh. He looks like he's talking to someone in the window at 1:12. The director of the show, maybe.

The other damning thing about this scene is the emphasis that the police are placing on the roof, but doing so as though they don't know the other half of the roof exists. Like, duh, if he's on the roof, he'd likely be over the peak, duh, maybe I should go look at the other half, duh, uh. There's no use looking at this side of the roof for more than a second since no one can get up on it from this side with four cops looking at it, and as he's nowhere to be seen on this side of the grounds, THE NATURAL THING TO DO, DUH, is to go look on the other half. FAKE SCENE. The police are in on the hoax, and this video thinks it's fooling the people into thinking the police were doing their job.

The rider on horse gets out of the way before the shots go off, perhaps because the rider doesn't want a spooked horse while it's around people, so she goes to park the fine-looking horse all by its lonesome at the right-side fence. She appears to know that bullets are about to sound.

In fact, she rides by the camera at 2:02, exactly one minute before the shots go off, and Trump may have been facing this horse already as per his discussion on the big billboard to his right. In other words, Trump may have been told, if you see the horse ride by, the hoax is on, and it's countdown, one minute to pow-time

The police were ordered something like: "go out and make like you're protecting the roof...uh, er, by staring at it for a couple of minutes even though nobody's going to be there. Just make it look like we're doing something until pop-time arrives. It won't be long now." The cop entering the scene at 1:22: doing nothing but a slow, peacock stride, and bossing the other officer to do something. The cop with grey shirt at the picnic table area on the right side: doing nothing. The cop at the front corner of the building: doing nothing. Nobody's looking for the suspicious person. And there's yet more officers in the building, too important to be out on the lawn looking stupid.

Peacock, before going out of view toward the front door or inside the building, backs up a little on the lawn TO CHECK THE ROOF ONCE LAST TIME. Maybe he just wants to check that nothing is visible at this time, for the dummy should have been planted at roughly this time, the red ink sooner. Another officer gets into his car as he walks away.

"Hey boss, we got a suspicious person, action for a change."

"Perfect time for me to give my peacock stride a whirl. Wanna see?"

"Oh boss, you're the best. In 20 years, I wanna be just like you."

"Kapow, kapow, kapow. Bangbangbangbangbang. K'tchoo. K'tchoo."

Let me remind you that when Trump surfaced from the podium, after the SS men and women were huddled around him, he told them to "wait" until he got both his shoes on. The SS guys had time to call their wives and say, "honey, I might be shot while Trump gets his shoes on, maybe hold off on making me dinner tonight."

"Thanks guys, you're all so swell, but wait another minute while I show my fearless superiority: "fight fight fight." "Okay guys, let's scram." He never did get his shoes on. SuperTrump, who deflects bullets with merely his ear flap, left the stage in his socks, the "holy ground."

Another purpose of the Stewart video could be to "prove" that there was no shooter on the water tower, for this video has the opportunity of erasing him, or, even easier, replacing him with a white patch, or just asking the doctoring software to make him all white. The water tower has a balcony all around it, with railing, no need to have a shooter at the very top. Arguing against this, if the woman with horse is an insider, is that she wouldn't have parked the horse near the tower if she knew the shots would come from there. If she's an insider, it makes sense she's parking as far as possible from the shooter(s), which would place him/them logically in the second-story window(s).

If she's an insider who alerted Trump that the hoax was on, then she must have been waiting for her cue to ride past the building. Her flag can be seen at her parked-horse position, before the ride, in the video with the black head running, and, per-chance, that black head is real, setting up the dummy after taking it from the east-side, second-story window that overlooks the roof. Once the dummy is successfully set up with acceptable blood stain, and all looks good, the woman on horse would be given her cue to ride. A green-light signal would first come from a second-story window, perhaps to the peacock, and when he walks across the lawn, it may have been her cue to begin riding, for she is not facing the two-story building to see the green-light signal.

It then becomes necessary for someone at the stage area to give his guards the signal who can't see the horse. One way to do this is to have Trump say something that they all know to be the signal. We could assume that he gave the signal within five or ten seconds of seeing the horse ride.

Google pretends I don't know what I mean by, "trump assassination rally full speech." It's not easy to find the full speech. People at google are programming the google robot not to bring up the full speeach. Why? It's only a few minutes long? Why does the robot only bring up the last minute or less? Might something that Trump said not jibe with doctored videos?

Twenty-five seconds before the first shot, two people, looking like friends, get suddenly chased away as they near the front door of the factory. The camera veers away to the horse just as they begin to get chased away. When the camera returns to them, the man has gone furthest, halfway toward the horse, with the woman staying near the door, maybe arguing with a police officer who told them rudely to get lost, or maybe talking because they are both involved. Everyone near the horse looks toward that front door.

An officer runs out from the front door area before she begins to run, and he then positions himself far enough from the building until he thinks he can see on the roof, I think, for he turns and does a backward step as if he's wanting to see what's going on, not because he fears there could be a shooter, but because he's hoping all's going as planned. He's got his right hand to what I think is his mouth because he has a phone or radio he's talking to. Look at how fairly long that officer stays alone out there, with no other officers on the lawn.

I think he's the one telling the cameraman to "get away," which is the only think in this video that argues it's not a deep-state video, because this officer's attitude, suddenly, suggests he knows the shots are coming, and wants no cameras. On the other hand, the peacock walked by him but didn't mind him recording. Matt Lautner, the one presenting this Stewart video on youtube, seems to claim, at 3:00, that the cameraman is not Dave Stewart, but Dave Smith, or maybe I'm not understanding it properly.

At 2:55 and 2:58, we see the part of the roof directly over the peak from the bloodstain. From 2:59 onward, just seconds from pow-time at 3:02, Lautner takes out half the footage. At 3:01, the camera is pointing to the part of the building having the roof directly over the peak from the blood stain, but the roof is out of the picture, tending to suggest that the insiders cropped it out, teasing us, the audience. It appears that an uncropped picture would show the entire factory, but as the second story is not visible from this spot, people at the bleachers could be expected to do zoom shots on the windows, if that's where the shots rang out.

In the meantime, the video on the right side of Lautner's video appears taken by an insider tasked with recording the scene from the bleachers, and that scene may be cropped too.

It appears that the insiders decided to make the Stewart cameraman run and be frantic, starting at about 2:59, due to what appears like an angry policeman, yelling at him, to explain why Stewart didn't get good shots of the roof when he had the golden opportunity to do so.

At 3:07 and 3:08, the ninth and tenth shots are heard while the camera is showing the roof directly over the bloodstain, but with a dark tree in the background.

Throughout the Stewart video, there is absolutely zero fuss under the tree to get the police officers to the other side of the building, which is another reason to see the he's-on-the-roof video as having fakery. That is, the man on roof was pasted in. There were no people pointing at him, that part was staged, with people pointing, yes, but with nobody on the roof. See that? The Stewart video proves it. There's no commotion under the tree all the way to kapow-time. Nobody along the fence goes to see what the hub-bub is under the tree. See that? There was no hub-bub. Just someone pointing, others looking at the roof, no noise. The sound track was prepared, probably before the shooting, and added to the guy-on-roof paste job, likewise prepared before the shooting.

If you slow the Stewart video to quarter speed, you can count five, vertical columns along the wall siding, including one each for both corners of the building. It's a match with the opposite side where we saw man on roof. I count 34 ridges on the metal siding between columns, and because I was able to measure each ridge as being one foot apart, there are 35 feet between columns. This is why the man on roof can be gleaned some 35 feet his backpack. In the Stewart video, his backpack is roughly above the 2nd window and 2nd column from the front corner of the building.

At 1:00 of the Stewart video, one can see a depression of land at the backside of the factory. But this depression is not at the front of the factory, and so we can't assume that the factory is four or five feet lower in elevation than the barns or the rally stage, and thus conclude that the peak of the roof was level with Trump's head. Paramount Tactical is posing this view to explain away claims that Crook's bullet needed to curve upward to strike Copenhaver after striking Trump's ear. Paramount says it didn't need to go upward because the bullet trajectory is horizontal from the ear to Copenhaver. He could be correct, but a shot to Copenhaver would miss Trump by a "mile" to the right of his ear.

However, at the start of the he's-on-the-roof video, the land from the tree camera to Trump's audience can be seen essentially perfectly flat, and the land under the tree is also flat with the side of the building where the blood stain's at.

The cameraman in the Stewart video looks like an insider by the fact that he doesn't even turn around to get some views of the stage, where he hears a commotion from a shocked audience. The tenth shot especially sounds like someone struck a strap of some kind against some metal object, a typical Hollywood-type sound effect to feign a real sound.

By 4:02 of the Stewart video, you tend to think the cameraman is having a nervous breakdown from the erratic camera, yet when he finally speaks, "get down," at 4:02, he sounds as normal as normal. I tend to think that nerves cannot make a camera go that way. The camera continues to be erratic even while he's talking. I apologize for the deep state's choice of profanity in this video, may God give that crime syndicate what it deserves for its destroyer attitude.

As could be half expected, the deep state decided to show an image of the man on roof doing something after he was shot. We could predict here that the purpose is to explain why the head ended up four feet below the peak, and, behold, the camera that supposedly caught it has a beige siding, and must therefore be the same camera that did the paste-in of Crooks. You can see the fakery blurred out near the 3rd minute, but we must ask, why didn't the owner of this video put this entire scene out weeks ago? Because, he's a deep-state operator. Youtube says this video is three days old on August 4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OLq-BrVh14

When we see the shooter's face at 3:23, it's so non-crisp that it must be a Bigfoot camera, or, maybe, one made in the 1800s. The deep state rolls this way with much of its faked shots. One can prove that this is another fake, and so let me show you how.

I found an aerial of the glass factory where I could measure the near-exact distance from the camera taking this shot, under the tree, to the edge of the building that has the shooter upon it. It's 125 feet. I now know that the blood stain is very close to 130 feet down the roof from the edge that this camera sees. The body of the paste job is nearer to the edge of the roof (13 feet off the ground) than to the peak (15 feet off the ground), and so the camera view goes off the roof where it's about 13.5 feet high. We assume that the camera is 6 feet off the ground at someone's eye level.

So, the math. The line of camera sight rises 13.5 - 6 = 7.5 feet over a ground distance of 125 feet. As the blood stain is 100 feet beyond the edge of the roof, the line of sight will rise an additional 100 / 125 = .8 of 7.5 feet, or 6.0 feet by the time it's directly above the shooter, meaning 6.0 feet above the roof sheeting...meaning we could not see Crooks at all from the camera. Yet the video pretends, by the blur it adds, that the shooter can be seen even lying down dead. FAKE! BELIEVE IT, it's so easy to prove. And if nobody else shows you this math, shame.

For the record, the video owner is being said to be from "John Malis."

Another beige-siding shot of this building is from a still-image paste job below, where the shooter is NOT the same man (thicker hair, older, meaner-looking) as the one photographed by Greg Nicol, who has less-thick hair, and having a mild look rather than mean (couldn't put on a mean face if he tried, maybe a pout at most). The man in this video appeared online, after the shooting, to say that he is Thomas Matthew Crooks, but that the FBI / SS has the wrong guy in the assassination plot. You can spot the beige siding at 47 seconds, yet the siding is white:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6FABh_pgJE

Reminder. They laid the dummy's head four feet from the roof peak in order that nobody over the peak would see the plant. That is, they could not lay it on the peak. Therefore, the plotters needed to develop a concocted reason as to how his head got that far down the peak in his dead position. Now that storyline is beginning to come out, maybe. We are now seeing the official storyline, that he survived the first bullet shot at him by a local police officer, then got up so that much of his body could be seen over the peak, when an SS sniper, being portrayed as a hero, shot him dead. Meanwhile, the SS brass has become the villain.

They yet need to explain how his head ended up four feet down (not three or two), and so that blur we see can be viewed as a sort of time-out while they figure out what the public might swallow for the rest of the explanation.

WORLD, ASK: why would they do paste jobs if they really did kill a man up there? Reading the comments at the video above, the "sale" is not being made. Viewers are hissing.

So, let me get this straight. He shoots, he then gets shot at, but rather than keep low, his sticks his head up like a duck in a shooting gallery? And, what a stroke of luck, while getting halfway up, he turns his face right toward the camera so that the FBI can prove to us that, yup, it's Crooks alright.

A dummy explains why the newscaster was so incredibly generous as to offer this as a whopping still photo. No movement at all, like the FBI is keeping its cards in hand for the time being in case it needs to show motion one way or the other to satisfy all the private investigators. It must have been so nice, FBI, when you could lie without all of the Internet investigators. They now expose you as a fraud. Enjoy your dinner, FBI, while half the country despises you, a quarter mistrusts you, and another quarter both despises you and wants you in jail.

Once pro-Trumpers realize that Trump was and still is involved in a faked shooting, they can begin to ask how much Trump was in cahoots with the Secret Service for the January-6 hoax.

For the record, the news media (NewsNation) presenting this video claims that a Butler district attorney said that a local police officer shot at Crooks, assumed to have taken place after his eight shots. The news report doesn't say whether the shot hit Crooks. The deep state is reserving its cards on whether this police officer hit or missed Crooks. The deep state is guilty of withholding this information from the public for 21 days as I write. Why would it withhold this information, keeping everyone guessing? Because, it's playing cards. It watches what the public and politicians say, then plays a card, watches what the public and politicians say, then plays a card, day after day, it plays cards, always cheating.

I've seen the image without blur of Crooks lying dead in the news piece above. He does not look gory at all. It's on the youtube cover of the video, "Video: Body of alleged shooter in Former President Trump's assassination attempt found on roof," by CNBC Television. Yet, in the short video, the body is blurred. You need to ask youtube for this video to see the cover. His running shoe is pointing up, as it is in a made-for-TV image when a sniper is on the roof pointing his gun at Crook's dead body.

However, in the helmet-cam image, his running shoe points down. In the image without blur and running shoe pointed up, his right arm is visible at the front of his body. In the helmet-cam images, his right hand is tied behind his back. It's nonsense to tie a dead man's hands behind his back. It's nonsense to tie his hands behind his back if Crooks is lying there acting dead. It seems like a break with protocol for police to move his body before the FBI arrives to inspect the scene.

Half the body, and half the head, is out of view below the roof line. However, it is impossible to see any part of a body lying down on a roof, 14 feet high, 100 feet down the roof, from a camera held by a person on the ground. Full stop, case closed, no buts about it. At the CNBC video above, the camera is presumably at a tree farther from the building than the tree 125 feet from it, but, even so, if you re-do my math above, one cannot see eight inches off the roof sheeting from a camera at that greater distance. Aerial views suggest that this camera is under a tree about 200 feet from the building's wall. The off-my-cuff math suggests that the camera line of sight, 100 feet down the roof above Crooks, is some 4 feet above the roof sheeting.

On August 4, Paramount Tactical said that he heard that the local officer missed with his shot, making sense because the deep state wants the shooter to be able to get four feet down the roof. But if he goes there before the 10th, fatal shot, then it can't hit him but by through the roof sheeting, or unless he sits up or get up on his knees, you see, exactly the storyline being manufactured. Nobody saw bullet holes in the roof sheeting.

The more gory the 10th shot, the more this proves to be a faked shooting for lack of splatter near the peak, especially as the deep state committed, in the Stewart video, to having his scalp and hair blown off. Sorry, readers, for that obscene picture, but my job is to prove fakery. As that scene was announced by someone at the camera, the FBI can yet change the story because it's not the official story.

To fake an assassination of a former president, the FBI and its partners will bring out all their marbles. This has been in the works for quite some time, with teams sitting around tables discussing options on how to do it, then choosing how to do it, then refining things, you can imagine lots of work and needing many winkers. They could even label it officially as a "drill."

About the time of the video above, three days ago as I write here, there was a Fox 5 Atlanta and Fox 11 Los Angeles report claiming that Crooks' autopsy report was released by a coroner, but neither Fox 5 nor anyone else is telling what it says aside from death by a single gunshot wound. It's like the FBI poker player in a smoky saloon saying he's about to lay his cards, but not yet. He first needs to smoke the place up a lot more with his cigar.

Bullet Echo? Really?

I realize the possibility that the deep-state faked a contract with the shooter, with his part of the deal to fake a shooting, then return to the ground to receive police protection, and later take his pay, but that they shot him dead instead. Others take that view. They absolutely would not have gotten away with paying him to do a real assassination because a fairly-normal 20-year old is smart enough to see that it's a suicide mission to go up onto that roof. Even if he's not shot dead from up there, there is a high risk that police would arrest him and jail him for the rest of his life.

A faked shooting makes complete sense of all we are hearing and seeing, and if it makes you feel better, because you think it, I could accept the possibility that, rather than using a dummy, they did kill him on the roof, though not by a sniper at long range.

On August 2nd, a big surprise took investigators by surprise as Ronald Rowe claimed that the SS sniper who took out Crooks fired his lone shot 15.5 seconds after Crook's first shot, meaning that the storyline has changed from the ninth shot to the tenth shot. This is going to make for interesting talk. Note that this conference came on a Friday, the best time to air news when the least people listening / interested is desired.

All the shooter's last five shots took place in .77 second, afterwhich .87 second went by before the 9th shot that people assumed was the sniper shot that killed Crooks. It took .35 second for the eighth shot to arrive to the mic, and 1/3rd as long (about .12) for the ninth shot to arrive to the mic, meaning that the ninth shot took place a measly .87 - .35 + .12 = .64 second after the 8th shot. It assumes that the ninth shot killed Crooks.

In other words, if the plotters claim that the ninth shot killed Crooks, there is some suspicious curiosity involved. The sniper didn't shoot the shooter during the last five shots, but shot with some slight time between the shooter's shots and his own, in order that the "audience," us, could hear the ninth shot without it's combining with one of the five. Why did they do it that way? To "prove" that a sniper shot the shooter, otherwise, if the ninth shot overlapped one of the shooter's shots, it would be very hard to know that it wasn't part of the shooter's shots.

I'm suggesting that the sniper was told: after you hear the fast string of shots (this rifle may have had only five bullets by design), wait a half second, then fire (over the buildings or something). That's what I think was the plan.

But Rowe is now sending a curve ball, insisting that a 10th bullet, some ten seconds after the ninth, was the killer shot. This storyline seemingly creates the problem of why Crooks didn't fire more shots in those ten seconds. I can begin to see the game being played, that while they can say the 9th shot hit Crooks but didn't kill him, he was able to get up, walk or crawl a few feet down the roof, when the 10th shot dropped him dead so that his head landed three or four feet from the peak. They can now say that the lack of blood at the peak was due to the ninth shot not critically wounding him (maybe it just grazed his ear). I don't know whether they will go to this storyline, but they now have the opening to do so if they wish, or if they think they can.

On the same day, at his press conference, Rowe was forced to admit that this was the first time that SS counter-snipers were assigned to protect Trump, AND LO: one (or two) was needed to kill the shooter. Coincidence? No, it was a pre-planned plot. We now find that the roof snipers had exactly zero radios, probably to assure that they could not get a radio warning from some police officer not privy to the hoax who might spot something suspicious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yc-WTYPW_o

Note at 8:27 of the video above how the back of the bleachers are higher than Trump's head.

In another Peak Prosperity video below, Chris seems convinced that Crooks was killed by a police gunman on the ground, not an SS sniper on the barn roof. He takes this position because he thinks the 9th shot had a recordable echo which bounced off a surface to Trump's mic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBKmwqzSQYs

By the way, at 27:02, a curious picture is showing with at least four second-story windows open, we wonder how this might play to protect the SS from incrimination. Did ESU / SS ask to have the windows open to make a good show of things while, during the shooting, most were not open? The more open windows, the more the snipers could hear, "there's someone of the roof." If indeed snipers were these windows, they were centrally complicit with the staging, no doubt about it.

PP's claim is that the sounds of all nine shots came to Trump's mic in 5.89 seconds, exactly the time counted by Paramount Tactical for the shots to the Stewart camera mic beside the glass factory.

However, the sound difference between the two mics, as well as at least three other factors, suggests to me that the FBI doctored the Stewart video audio, which tends to show that the cameraman is an insider in spite of the report that he was arrested. It is my impression that the FBI doctored the video to "correct" what sounds like two different guns at Trump's mic, and in the meantime added further audio to "prove" yet again that the shooter was spotted on the roof. This time, someone at the camera sees his hair blown off, nonsense. There are so many dubious videos intended to prove the shooter on the roof that I think there was no shooter on the roof.

I'd like to say that the 9th shot is not the only bullet to show what looks like an echo, but Peak Prosperity does not mention this (in this video, anyway). The first shot has an echo showing in the blue part of the sound recording (at 1:00). Then, when he shows an aerial of the rally site, we can see that there could possibly be an echo off the first barn wall, to Trump's mic, if the shot came from a second-story window where the Beaver team was. But after further inspection, I found that the echo could not be off a barn wall.

Note also that the 10th bullet has an echo unaddressed in this video.

On the sound recorder, the bullet volume is indicated by how tall the sound is for each bullet. They all have the same tallness. ??? As the sound recording shows all ten bullets with the same volume, it doesn't make sense that the ninth and tenth came from a barn roof because they should be much louder at Trump's mic than shots from the factory roof. Right? The barn snipers are only about 150 feet from the mic, though with guns not pointing toward the mic when shot.

You might say that the closer guns registered the same loudness as the further guns because the latter were pointed to the mic. I'd agree that guns pointed at a mic will foist more sound toward the mic that guns not pointed at a mic, BUT, there is only a slim chance that both the barn-roof and factory-roof guns would register exactly the same mic volume by their varied situations. It beckons us to consider whether all ten bullets were fired from the same place, and in the same direction. This picture ruins the SS storyline and plays to a faked shooting, i.e. no bullet was fired from the stage / barn area toward the factory. How does Peak Prosperity and Paramount Tactical not tell us what I just have, since they both witnessed that all ten bullets registered the same volume.

On my computer screen, where the first nine shots (in PP's video) are separated by 8.25 centimeters, the echo of the ninth shot is .5 centimeter from where the initial shot shows. The math then tells that this represents .5 / 8.25 = .06 of the total distance of 8.25 centimeters, wherefore the time between shot and echo is .06 of 5.9 seconds, or .35 second. As sound carries reliably at 1,125 feet per second, it tells that the echo reliably travelled 1125 x .35 = some 400 feet more than the initial sound of fire...reliable only if the sound recorder is correctly recording the length of time as .5 centimeter.

But if the echo from the first shot bounced off the barn wall, that's only about 200 feet more than the track of the initial sound. It doesn't work off the barn wall.

On my computer screen, the distance from the snipers on the south-side barn to Trump's mic is 3 centimeters, and there are 6 centimeters from the same barn roof to the building showing at the bottom-right of the picture at 2:00 of the video above (the south side is the right side of the picture). Then, from that building to the mic is an additional 5 centimeters for a total track of 11 centimeters. So, the original shot travels 3 centimeters to the mic, and the echo travels 11 centimeters, or 8 centimeters more than the original shot. Can this work to explain the echo of the ninth shot? Yes as far as timing, but no where the building's wall doesn't quite deflect sound straight to the mic.

How far is 8 centimeters? On the same screen, the factory is 8.5 centimeters to the mic, which finds the distance per centimeter as: 420 / 8.5 = roughly 50 feet. That's 400 feet for 8 centimeters, and we had found 400 feet needed above. Therefore, as far as time is concerned, a bounce off of this building can work to explain the echo of the ninth shot, if taken from the southern barn.

In case you couldn't easily follow the above, maybe this is better: from snipers on the barn roof to the mic, there are about 3 x 50 = 150 feet. From the same sniper to the building at the bottom-right, then bouncing to the mic, there are about 11 x 50 = 550 feet, meaning that the echo should arrive to the mic in as much time as it takes sound to travel 550 - 150 = 400 feet (it takes .35 second).

If we now say, aha, we have discovered that the ninth shot came from the southern barn, woe there. All ten bullets have the same volume, and therefore if one came from the barn, we should assume that all ten did. If this is a ridiculous conclusion, then we should say it's mere coincidence for sound from the barn to perfectly square with the echo of the ninth shot. Besides, the sound bouncing off the building under discussion sends sound, coming from the barn, slightly away from the mic i.e. not expected to form a sound loud enough at the mic to create an echo bar on the recorder.

As per the ninth shot possibly echoing off the factory wall: there are 10.5 centimeters from the same sniper, to the factory wall, and finally an additional 8 centimeters back to the mic, for a total track of about 18.5 x 50 = 950 feet. The echo here should be on a path 950 - 150 (feet to the mic) = 800 feet longer than the initial shot to the mic, and that takes 1,125 / 800 = .7 second. We have now over-shot the .35 second by two times, and so this doesn't work to explain the echo on the ninth shot.

The first bullet's echo recording (shows in the blue region of the recording) is .6 centimeters long rather than .5 centimeter, requiring a longer bounce to the mic than 400 feet. As .6 / .5 = 1.2, it requires a bounce of: 400 x 1.2 = 480 feet.

The walls of the building at the lower-right of the picture do not allow sound to bounce toward the mic, from a shot taken from the factory roof. Therefore, it can suggest that the sound of the first shot went past the mic to something else, about 240 feet beyond the mic, then bounced back 240 feet to the mic, for a total of 480. The problem is, I see nothing nearly 240 feet from the mic that could create the echo as needed to explain / match the echo bar on the device.

At 8:27 of the same video, we see another aerial, this time showing a building to the south of the barns said to be "FOP," or perhaps "FCP," I can't make it out with certainty. I'm reading: "The Butler County ESU team was to set up a command post for the rally at Brady Paul FOP Memorial Lodge at 9 a.m". It must be "FOP" on the aerial view.

When the distance from the blood stain to Trump's mic is 4 centimeters on my computer screen (at 8:27 of the video), the distance from the mic to the FOP building wall is 3.5 centimeters. Each centimeter on this image is 450 / 4 = 112 feet, which figures a distance of 112 x 3.5 = roughly 400 feet from mic to FOP wall. And when we double it to find the footage back to the mic, we have 800, much more than the required 480 above to explain the first shot's echo. Bluntly, the first bullet's echo cannot be explained by anything seen in the aerials.

Both the blue and gold regions of the sound recording shows the 10th shot with an echo about .2 centimeter (= 1/3 of .6) from the initial shot, requiring the echo sound to travel 160 feet (= 1/3 of 480) longer than the initial sound did. I can't see any situation to fit this distance with bullets shot from the factory roof, or the two-story building holding the snipers. Be my guest trying to figure things out with this information, but I'm concluding that the sound recordings show no echoes.

Plus, every sound recorder designed to show a picture of the sound seems to get a different shape. Plus, the sound recorders are not recording the actual shots, but recordings of the shots, and my computer mic is not your computer mic. PP has a video on the shapes of sound recordings, but watching just half of it made me decide not to share that trash with you. PP makes some glaring mistakes, and so do I. I try to catch my trash, and delete it.

For example, PP is 100-percent sure that the police took the rifle out of the hands of Crooks, and laid it to the side a few feet from him, because, he says, police never know whether a person is yet dead or not, and so it's best to just separate gun from supposed dead man.

It turns out that not all sound recorders show each bullet at Trump's mic having the same volume level. Tentatively, I prefer the idea that all ten shots came from the same place, in which case it makes the most sense that all shots came from an ESU sniper at a two-story window(s). There was no need to shoot Crooks from afar, if indeed they killed him, because someone on the roof behind him could have done it...with the tenth shot. It can explain why he dropped to the roof three or four feet from the peak.

In his sound-effects video, PP says that shot 6 is "completely missing from Trump's mic," in which case: was I wrongly assuming that the sound pictures above were from recordings off of Trump's mic? He then says that shot six must have hit Comperatore, because it explains why the shot is missing the "snick," all very non-convincing because I see nothing missing. He knows that each bullet's sound picture is mixed with sounds from the audience....so that it's in vain for anyone to seek an interpretation of the bullet's sound picture outside of it's loudest (tallest) parts, far beyond (taller than) the noise levels of the audience. By "snick," he means the sound of the bullet travelling through the air. He's trying to give the impression that shot six had no bullet passing near the mic, wherefore it hit a body.

While I see his explanations on bullet audio as non-graspable, confusing, badly-explained trash (I was really hoping he had something decent to say), people in the comments, who think he's doing a great job but way above their heads to know, congratulate him for fine work. This happens lots in video comments. He owes his viewers 40 minutes of their time for offering worse than nothing on this aspect of the shooting.

In this scenario, he takes his shots, finishing his plotted task, then gets up to begin his way back down the roof, and gets shot by someone with him. The lack of blood spatter on the roof can suggest a small gun or small bullet, though there is then the question of how a small bullet or two could make as much noise at the mic as the rifle shots did.

But who says that the ten shots were from rifles? Couldn't they have been from a handgun with small bullets? My first impression upon hearing the shots on Trump's mic was that they sound not nearly as loud as rifle shots.

My better senses tell me that, as this was a faked assassination, they didn't need to be so cruel, or be so risky, as to murder anyone. If the goal was to kill Trump, then, yes, they would spare a life or two for such a great boon to the deep state as foiling the Trump movement. But with the goal being much to make a deal with Trump, why would they have anyone killed in the process when they have the means to fake it all? Makes no sense. They have the means to pay off a keep-his-mouth-shut coroner, a keep-his-mouth-shut funeral director, etc. They have lists of such trusted people, and so they may have a bastion of willing accomplices in the Pittsburgh area, explaining why this deed was chosen to be in Butler.

The owners of the factory probably wouldn't agree to having bullets shot into their walls or rooves, and so the barn snipers didn't shoot any bullets at the factory complex, especially as it was crawling with police and snipers. People have looked for bullet holes in the buildings, with private drones, but none have been found.

Trump must have agreed that, if he feigns the assassination in partnership with the deep state, he would return a favor(s) in some way, when president. Trump becomes God by surviving the assassination, and the shadow government gets assurances from him that they can continue their money laundering. Plus, as part of the deal, some of the treasury money could go to the Trump family.