. Late last week, local police in the Butler area released a few body-camera videos to expose the assassination plot as the plotters designed it. I didn't have time to study them all well, and by this time I might feel like puking because youtube forces me to watch videos from Peak Prosperity, Jeff Ostroff and Paramount Tactical, all of whom are too dishonest and afraid to claim that these videos were scripted stage shows.

Barely anyone else comes up on my youtube who elaborates on this topic because I've clicked these channels so many times and refuse to click on the few others who make me even more disappointed. When I ask google for the Stewart video, it gives several pages with the Matt Lautner video that comes with no timestamps, with lots of writing on the screen too, to block out some of the picture.

I think we can identify Hoister coming in his own car and parking behind Peeper's car. At 53 seconds of Lautner's video below, Peeper's car is in the foreground, and we can see Hoister's car coming in to park behind him. They picked a tall guy for Hoister because he's the one doing the impossible hoist of Peeper to the roof, and the taller he is, the better this hoax comes off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe1U9O3Fm18

We're looking for clues that the men are staging this plot as decided, planned and practiced beforehand. As Hoister stops his car, Peeper's back is turned away from him, at 57 seconds, but Peeper turns around at :59 for a quick look. Peeper is pretending to guard against the shooter, which he knows is on the roof at this time, but he's far too close to the building to see the peak, wherefore he's discovered as a fake already i.e. he's not interested in seeing whether the shooter is dangerous on the roof. The Stewart camera is able to see the peak, barely, and so there's no way that Peeper can, as he walks along the south side of the building. What exactly do we suppose he's doing walking there, considering that this was a staged production?

At 1:02, Hoister is out of his car. Blue Shirt is spotted at the picnic table at 1:03, who ends up joining the two cops in the alley shortly, for the fake-hoist job at which he pretends to see the shooter with gun, the first time anyone sees him with a gun, as this movie goes. Peeper should appear a little nervous as he walks across the building, but, nope, no concern can be detected in him at all.

When Peeper falls some seven to eight feet from the roof, not only does he not go down hard enough to the ground for one falling from that height, but neither the feet or other body parts of Hoister nor Blue Shirt can be seen on his wide-angle camera. If we imagine that they were both under his feet, holding him up, shouldn't at least one of the two appear on his camera as he falls facing the exit to the alley? As neither are seen, they would need to be behind him as he falls facing the exit, but how possibly they be behind him since his fall is expected a couple of inches from the wall?

And how does he fall facing the exit, away from the wall, when we see the fall starting with him facing the wall? Easy, he was on a ladder, and he climbed down to about three feet up, then jumped and feigned like he was falling from a greater height. That's why a third policeman (he's in the last update as "third cop") with body camera walked away, into the parking lot, as his excuse for not capturing the hoist and fall on his camera. I'm going to call this third policeman, Slow Cop.

In my strong opinion, even if there is "evidence" to the contrary, the cameraman for the Stewart video is an insider, paid to capture Peeper on camera, for Peeper says nothing to him, even though the camera can be as little as 20 feet from him at times. Nobody tells the cameraman to get off the lawn, to clear out of danger. Peeper doesn't warn anyone to be on the watch for a man on roof.

Stewart's camera work has someone beside the camera saying that he saw Crooks' scalp fly off, but in the official photo of the dead man, neither is he Crooks, and neither does he remotely have his scalp flown to the roof (head fully intact, just a little hollywood make-up on the face). See that? The choreography team's original acts / intentions didn't mirror the final official reports because the latter had to evolve to counter / dismiss clues of the hoax that were being discovered day after day.

The horse you see at 1:27 ends up behind a building apparently because the rider is in some relationship with Tattoo (see him my last update), another cop who arrives to the movie set. She's seen behind the building on Tattoo's body camera. The only reason I see for her being there is that she's talking to Tattoo. Where's her horse trailer? Shouldn't it be in the parking lot?

As Peeper strides like a peacock at 1:28, the shooter could shoot him dead at any second, but he calmly walks along because he knows there's no shooter, no danger. Right? Of course. At 1:39, Peeper and Hoister are in the same picture, just as the time arrives to head for the alley. Hoister can be seen to Peeper's right standing, not moving, waiting for his cue to head for the alley. As soon as Peeper takes one step toward the alley, Hoister gets a move-on too. He walks to Peeper's car door, but we can't see what he's doing there. The movie camera shifts away to show Blue Shirt standing on the picnic table, and neither he nor Hoister think to fire shots to indicate man on roof. All three men should have contacted central command about this man, and we assume that any radio use by any of them would automatically be overheard by central command. The latter therefore had plenty of time to contact SS at the stage. THIS IS A FAKE JOB. They could have fired shots at the fence, waving hands, more than enough to get Trump off the stage. They could have sounded their sirens.

When the camera returns to Peeper, Hoister looks like he wants to get to the alley first. You can verify that it's Hoister at the 13:24 point of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJCY6Wnib_0

I point this all out to show how not-real this scene is. We found out this past weekend that Peeper and another cop spotted a man on the roof from the time he/they arrived to the parking lot with his car. This other officer was Slow Cop. Both contributed body-camera video as part of the movie. Why do we think that Hoister's body-cam footage hasn't been released? It would be harder to fake a hoist-to-roof with two cameras showing parts of it, and nearly impossible with a third showing all of it.

Peeper's camera work comes without sound until after the shooting, which can be explained in that the Butler police chief thought it best that we don't hear Trump at the mic while Peeper is circling to the lawn NOT WARNING ANYONE. The fact that Trump is on the stage at that minute is damning against Peeper, Hoister and Blue Shirt. ALL GUILTY.

There's two explanations as to why Peeper and Hoister RUN to the alley: 1) to add the drama expected, which was not at all present during the peacock stride (why not?); 2) they were a little late in time. As evidence of the latter, the faked hoist scene was made very short, though of course we can't trust the timestamps in this movie at anytime, because, when needed, timestamps can be altered.

Things here at the movie set had to be coordinated in time with Trump's part in the show, and that of the SS snipers on the barn roof. They all had to get the signal as to when the shooting would commence, and so the hoist scene had to be done in a small window of time, because Peeper and Hoister are only about a minute from pow-time as they run into the alley.

Slow Cop is there ready for them at the front of the alley, and he too has seen the man on the roof, though, conveniently, he was too far away (near water tower) to see whether the roof man had a rifle. Does his not knowing about a rifle excuse him from warning the stage in any way possible? No. Instead of going to the alley, he should have any number of things as a warning, because, in a genuine assassination attempt, he knows he's going to be held responsible if he doesn't. He points with his hands into the alley because, otherwise, we'd be asking how Peeper and Hoister knew of the low roof in the alley, since they arrived from off the property a minute earlier. Pointing into the alley is supposed to tell us why Hoister and Peeper went in there. Slow Cop captures both men running in, but then doesn't stick around to capture the hoist, ya-ya-sure-sure.

Slow Cop WALKS up to the alley, NOT RUNNING with concern, not worried about whether the man has a rifle, perfect because it tells us this was a movie...with very bad acting.

Slow Cop sees the man running on the roof from almost three minutes before pow-time, at which time at least one Beaver sniper was in the second story. Beaver ESU was part of Butler's team, and there was at least one Butler ESU sniper in the second story with the Beaver men. So, no sooner does Slow Cop report a man on roof to his Butler command that the Butler ESU would get the message to look out the window for man on roof. This didn't happen because this was a movie.

Some would say, no, the cops were not filming a movie deliberately because their acts expose the fakery too much. I would agree with that assessment, that their cameras expose the hoax, yet it's necessary for the plotters to create the camera work conducive with the hoax as much as possible in order to hide it. I say they did a bad job trying. If we come to the conclusion that none of the cops who saw the shooter radioed the Butler command in order to create an excuse not to have ESU look out the window, then that alone is proof that Butler police was in on the hoax. In that case, they want their camera work to be solidly hiding the hoax. Butler's coordinators think they can get away with not messaging central command just because the rifle of the man on roof was not seen until it was too late to stop the shooting.

Slow Cop thus comes out looking like he's part of the hoax, begging why they even released his video. I would argue that it doesn't matter whether a billion common people realize that this was a hoax, because the official storyline is what counts, as it leverages congress to do what this hoax set out to do, which, I think, includes more congress-allotted money to the SS to beef up a tyrannical state, and to enrich those who control that state. Congress people, for fear of being shamed or worse, are not allowed to even hint that all the officers were involved in a grand hoax...unless there is such solid evidence that they can stand behind it unashamedly/fearlessly.

At 13:24 of the Peak Prosperity video above, the building seen beside the water tower is where the horse and rider will soon be. Tattoo captures horse and rider there, as he runs toward the movie set, and we can see Tattoo doing this at PP's 23:07 point. Why did they need a horse for their movie?

Tattoo sets up the black ladder on the cabinet at 6:16:28 of the video below, starting at its 4:06 point. This gives easy access to the roof, easier than using the skid that you see under the ladder. But, a few seconds later, Tattoo is told that four guys got up to the roof by way of the alley, and so he disappointedly tells the sniper on the cabinet to come back down, instead of climbing the black ladder. What harm would it have been if the sniper, too, went to the roof by way of this ladder? Why call him down?

Did the directors know from the start that no sniper would get to the roof by way of this ladder? If so, why have this scene at all? Or did the plotters want two different options for getting to the roof in case one couldn't be used? What risk could the alley option pose to require the cabinet option? If a non-insider happened to come to the alley, he would see the ladder. So, when the plotters saw that the coast was clear, without outsiders, and when they saw men from the stage area running to the shooting site, they gave the green light to do the alley method, and got it done fast, then pulled the ladder to the roof.

After the shots ring out, the entertainers fake a nervous reaction on the cameraman of the Stewart video. The erratic camera work goes on for over a minute. This is the video with flashes at a window that suddenly looses its glass glare, indicating the distinct possibility that the glass pane was removed from inside the building in order to allow someone to shoot a rifle through it. These flashes are seen at 3:12, about nine seconds after the first shot sounds. However, I have seen footage where the glass is highly filled with glare during the flashes, and this is how the deep state can easily change the facts of any scene that exposes fakery.

About ten seconds go by between first shot and flashes. It's conspicuous that about ten seconds go by also between the ninth and tenth (final) shot, which can suggest that the tenth is really the ninth shot, and that they moved the soundtrack of the first nine shots to an earlier time, 10 seconds earlier, to hide that the flashes were part of the shots.

In other words, though we hear the first shot at the start of 3:02, the real first shot was at the end of 3:11, when the flashes are first seen. The ninth shot sounds at 3:08, six seconds after the first, and the tenth shot is at 3:18, about six seconds after the flashes. That's how the tenth shot can be a repeat sounding of the ninth shot. We hear the ninth shot twice in this video because the nine shots were faked between 3:02 and 3:08 that in reality ended at 3:18. Don't you think they would have changed the sound of the two ninth shots a little, rather than allow them to be exactly the same? And that's what they did.

This must have been the plan from before the shooting because Peeper starts to react to the shots when we hear them begin at 3:02. He comes along, as soon as he gets out of his car, past the window with the flashes, and we can glean here that he's making sure the shooting act has a green light before he goes to the alley scene. He doesn't go much further than this window before turning around. Somebody has to give him the green-light cue, perhaps someone under the tree.

When the Stewart video passes the window soon to have the flashes, we see definite glare on it. The glass is in place. We often see glare on that window as the camera passes it, but not for when the flashes go off. PP has yet to mention these flashes, so far as I've heard.

We see Peeper pointing at least roughly toward this window at 1:12, seconds after he's walked by it. I can't understand why he's pointing that way, with nobody around him. Even if he's pointing to the roof, why would he do this with nobody with him? Normally, one points to show somebody something. He's standing in front of door 10, and perhaps this was his task, to indicate to someone in the door that he's arrived. We could expect a countdown of a certain duration that all players knew of once all green lights are indicated.

As Peeper then strides his signature stride, Blue Shirt goes back to the picnic table (1:20), having recently left it (at 1:03), as though he gets a signal that it's not yet time to head for the alley. Hoister is keeping his place at this same time. As the camera pans across (1:22 and 1:28) the building again and yet again, all windows seems to have lost their glare (sun behind slight clouds?), but at 2:55, we can see glare on two side-by-side windows, one being the window soon to have flashes. We are just six or seven seconds before pow-time. We see glare on one of the same two side-by-side windows at 3:01, but no glare on the window soon to have flashes (at 3:11/12).

It's to be expected that the camera points to the sky (away from the these two windows), as bullets start to sound, if the bullets or faked bullets are from a window directly in front of the camera. Both windows show glare at 3:07, as the last five shots begin. The flash window shows lots of glare at this time, until the end of 3:07, when both windows lose their glare.

The glare returns, at 3:08-09, to the window that has flashes and no glare at 3:12. One could argue that loss of glare is not due to someone removing a window pane, but merely a glitch of the camera. Or, we could argue that, before releasing this video, they touched the video up with two windows losing their glare to make a claim seem empty that a glass pane was removed during the flashes. Or, it's possible that they are playing with us, in what some call a psychological operation, with the flashes (they last only about a second or more), yet we do hear a bullet sound six seconds after the flashes.

One needs to explain how the flashing window shows no glare while there is a video I saw showing high glare during the flashes. It's proof that someone altered this window after the shooting, but nobody would take the glare away if the glare is the reality. Rather, they would add the glare as the alteration to hide that the flashes were gunshots out the window. And they might even alter the shape of the flashes so that Paramount Tactic could say they are definitely not gun flashes. Then what flashes are they, Paramount? The plumber fixing a copper pipe with his torch ten seconds after the shots?

But then why not remove the flashes altogether if they can doctor the video any way this wish? That's a good question. Why would they have the Stewart camera point away from the window during the shots heard, but not during the flashes? Perhaps it was a mistake. Perhaps he was told to point the camera to the sky at a certain time, then point it to the grass at a certain time, but he mistakenly came up from the grass too soon such that he caught the flashes. No sooner does he catch the flashes that a tree trunk gets between his camera and the window.

Why won't youtube give me many options on "phony videos" when I ask it with that phrase? Do globalists want us to believe there's no such thing as video tampering? Are they kidding us? Google likewise acts like it doesn't know what I'm looking for. Where can we get an education on how to doctor videos? When I ask google, "how to doctor a video," it gives videos on doctors. Asking "how to alter a video scene," it gives information on how to edit videos, which is not the same thing. If you can have the following face-swapping software, imagine what the FBI and CIA have:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e7xwKCGrhw

Youtube offers me no more face-swapping software when I watch the video above. What about adding a moving scene into a moving scene? Why not? The face-swapping software makes the altered face move with the original face/head. Wherever the head goes, the added / faked face goes with it. Why can't the FBI add a man on the roof running that wasn't there to begin with??? Duh, of course it can.

In the Stewart video, the horse cuts across the building one minute before pow-time, and a horse is a good, large object for Trump and others near him to see for indicating a green light, the countdown to pow-time. We could then conjecture that the horse reaching behind the building, near the tower, was Tattoo's cue to come to the set.

WOW NEW. After the horse goes by, take a look at the window that will soon flash, at 2:24. What is that curved thing doing at the top of the window? Who hung it there? It looks like a cord through some items. I've never noticed this before, how could it have escaped me? I've been studying these windows for quite some time. It's visible also at 1:58 just as the horse comes into view for its walk. What could it be if not some signal or green-light indicator to somebody at the stage / barns? How could I have missed this thing until now, August 13?

It looks like a hefty necklace. It's still hung at 2:56, but gone at 3:01, expected if the flashes at 3:12 needs the glass to be off. We don't see the window again until 3:07, when they offer a low-quality picture that seems to have lots of glare on the glass. I assume the thing is not hanging at this time.

It's not there when the flashes go off five seconds later, and at some points, mid-flashes and post-flashes, the glass shows a whitish, rectangular border that indicates the glass pane is on, suggesting a paste job (splicing in of some frames) to "prove" that the glass was ON during the flashes. The splicing of the rectangular border would have been done to some footage only, after that original footage was out to the public. The theory here is that they could not splice out the flashes altogether, because the flashes were already in the public domain, but, for example in Lautner's video, they could splice in the border in the midst of flashes in case the flashes become a big issue needing to be quelled. So far, the flashes have been largely quelled thanks to compromisers like PP, goofers like Jeff, and fraidy cats like Paramount Tactic.

It's debatable, but at 1:58, the object seems to overlap the window frame, but barely, which can suggest that it's on the outside of the glass. However, there's nobody I can see who could have hung it from the outside. In other views, the object looks to be on the inside, making much more sense.

What I haven't seen, though I've been investigating this crime for weeks in a row, full-time, is Peeper's camera footage when he first gets out of his car, then walks down across the window a few times. What might his camera show at that window as he walks backward looking toward the building starting at 1:33? We see the object is on three seconds later, you see. Is that object's appearance the reason that they haven't released that part of Peeper's footage? Looks like.

Peeper's job would have been to assure that nobody was around to see the object go on, and for this job he needs to act calm, but then his acting calm is absolutely a dead giveaway to the hoax, for he's supposed to know already that there's a man on the roof. PEACOCK IS A FAKE. At 1:40, he walks off to the hoist scene with the object freshly ON.

The object is not on at 1:28, but is some seven or eight seconds later. How could anyone run to the window in that short time to put it on? I was able to see the window (at quarter speed) at 1:36 only about twice in about 15 tries. It appears for only a frame or two at the top-left corner, and, usually, when I double-click the pause button, the video goes forward a slight but stops after the window slips out of view.

At 2:54, we see a similar object in the neighboring window, which is such a fat chance that I'm seeing a paste job here to "prove" that the object in the flash window is just some sort of camera aberration or reflection (impossible), for the similar thing in the neighboring window disappears quickly, as though it's a camera aberration or reflection.

Other proof that the Lautner video has been tampered with is how it repeatedly goes crisp to blurred, as if a software is programmed to blur any part of the footage at the click of a mouse. At 2:55, shortly before pow-time, during an extreme blur and hocus-pocus period, the object in window seems missing, but double-clicking at slow speed at 2:56 will capture the object still hung. At 2:58, the object is gone, and the rectangular frame on the glass is still visible, as it is at 3:01, suggesting that the first three shots did not go off at 3:02, when they are heard.

The camera is behind the tree trunk at 3:17-18, which is when we can expect the ninth shot...because it's six seconds after the flashes while the ninth shot is heard six seconds after the first shot. The ninth may have been a real bullet to shoot at the bleachers because the cameraman could be behind the tree to protect himself. I wouldn't suggest that they were afraid to actually shoot people, if they thought it best, but I do suggest they can feign injuries, and have done so many times.

At 3:28, ten seconds after 3:18, his camera indicates he's still behind the tree, and 3:28 could therefore be when the tenth shot went off, in case I'm wrong about the tenth being a sound-repeat of the ninth. There were ten seconds between the ninth heard shot and the tenth heard shot.

Immediately after 3:28, he walks over to capture the scene at the front of the building. The horse is not seen walking to behind the building at 3:34-36. The last time he sees the horse is behind the picnic table at 2:34. The horse is not seen walking to the building up to 2:54, and it's doubtful it did so during the shooting, suggesting it walked there between 3:18 and 3:34. The video time of 3:36 was at 6:12:07 pm, and as Tattoo's camera shows the horse stationary behind the building at his camera time of 18:12:14, it's doubtful the horse could change settings in just seven seconds.

The video below is not expected to come up at youtube, but bitchute allows it. It's one of the rare videos I've seen insisting on a hoaxed assassination. I don't know whether the video owner here made the video versus presenting it from someone else, but the video owner looks like a White supremacist, possibly. In any case, this video adds Trump's voice in sync, with the hoist scene. Trump begins to look toward the shooter's building when discussing a chart, and mention of the chart is exactly when Hoister and Peeper get into action for the hoist scene (5th minute):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GrCScN6XzWh1

Peeper knows he has only so much time, after the hoist, to get to the south lawn before the shots are fired.

The speaker in the video above makes the point well that this hoax has a purpose to anger Trump voters...which plays to a build-up of the deep state staging the start of a civil war, if it thinks it can start one by doing so.

At 6:30 of this aerial, one can spot the sunlit wall of a two-story building at the top-right of the building complex. How skinny would that wall appear from someone seeing it from Trump's stage? Very skinny. If you want to know that the so-called Copenhaver video (see 2:26) is a farce, you need to take the time to follow what I'm saying here. The black head in the Copenhaver video is seen on a white background that is supposed to be the sunlit wall above. See anything amiss?

Look at how wide the sunlit wall appears on the Copenhaver video. It spans about six roof ridges on the building closest to the camera. But if you draw two lines from the sunlit wall, one from either end of the wall, to the stage, then those lines cross the shooter's roof very close together, only about two roof ridges apart. Not nearly as far apart as shown in the Copenhaver video.

At 5:00 of the aerial, and also at a few seconds earlier when the stage location is shown, you can make out that a line from the stage (parallel with the road) to the shooter's building is a straight ish line to the four gas stacks that rise higher than the roof. That is, the line from stage to the four stacks does not come in at a sharp angle, though it does in the Copenhaver video. See that?

The four stacks are to Trump's perfect right. That is, a line from his left shoulder through his right shoulder points to the four stacks, at a 90-degree angle from a frontward glance of his face. But in the Copenhaver video, the stacks are roughly at a 55-degree angle from Trump's frontward glance. This is proof of fakery. In any false-flag operation, seek video doctoring; it's the first thing I do. Keep it always in mind as the storyline unfolds.

If you take the aerial starting at 8:32 to 8:40, you can see that the road I'm referring to points at least close to the four stacks. You can also check between 9:08 to 9:15 to see that it's almost bang-on a straight line. It needs to be nearly straight for Trump to get his ear grazed because he was looking to his direct right at pow-time.

They therefore pasted that huge building into the Copenhaver video, and so why not the black head too? But, as I said two updates ago, this shot was not likely taken from Copenhaver's camera, tending to serve as evidence that he's an insider; otherwise he wouldn't stand for this lie.

Everyone understands that the building was exploded many times in size, but this only goes to show that moving scenes can be pasted on top of moving scenes. Either to facilitate a learning point, or to deceive in staged operations.

Blood in the Bathroom

Peak Prosperity does a video on the mysterious blood in the bathroom, but before you watch it, let me tell you my theory. The blood in the bathroom is the left-over faked blood used to "decorate" the roof. Someone disposed of it down the sink and/or toilet, but some of it remained somewhere. I think that Greg Nicol and/or his partner are the main suspects in setting up the roof hoax. Nicol was in this building immediately after the shooting, and he was supposedly missing from his second-story window for some three minutes before the shooting. He probably knows what the "blood" in the bathroom is.

After you see people enter the glass factory's front door,led by Nicol, who had come from beyond the fence, one of them (as continues my theory) spots blood in the bathroom, and this starts a set of actions that includes to possibility of a second shooter aired over police radio, explaining why several police people enter the building like on a mission to catch the second shooter.

Minutes later, a man at the front door, who looks like he's the doorman, fakes like the blood came from someone (unidentified) needing stitches, no worries, there's not really a second shooter, it was just a joke or something.

Finally, a tripod comes out the front door, gets propped near the railing, but PP doesn't tell his audience that it's a tripod, and most of his viewers think it's a rifle because it has the look of one when folded up. PP must have known that this was the tripod seen in an image showing a rifle, fixed UPON A RIFLE STAND, at a second-story window, but he denies this to his viewers, for the time being, anyway. Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-AKAEC8c6g

The second guy who comes by to pick-up the tripod looks completely like he doesn't want to get caught by an on-looker, especially when he finally grabs it to take it away. Perhaps this man is toying with the audience, merely acting suspicious. It seems that he's Nicol's accomplice, one of the men stationed on the second story, but PP doesn't tell this to his audience, maybe saving it for another video. And we should not believe that the third sniper on the second story went home an hour or two before pow-time.

The man who grabs the tripod was in the building from pow-time, we may gather, because this is the first time we see him. He wasn't carrying the tripod out the door, and so the one who did carry it could be the third sniper. Any of these three could have been the one who caused the flashes in the window, and hung the cord-like object.

The fact the Peeper parked his car so that his dash-cam above could see the goings-on at the front door may have been part of the plan, but the plan may not have included people coming to this building from the stage area. Everything Peeper does, knowing now that he knew of a man on roof before arriving to this door, incriminates him as part of the hoax. If for any reason you want to see the dash-cam footage for hours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pq8AU43HOc

Here's a video out on August 9, and we hear at 1:50 that the blood stain was still visible on the roof, though this statement was from before August 9. How hard could it be for rain to wash off real hardened blood from painted metal? But if it was not blood, it could explain the lingering stains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P1kgzZ_e2Y

Just because it was Dave Stewart who reports his over-hearing "second shooter" over Peeper's car radio doesn't necessarily mean that he's an outsider to the hoax, though it sure can have the purpose of making us think so. The plotters could be toying with us. PP helps to make the second shooter a non-issue by solving the blood mystery...with a tiny cut on the hand that stops bleeding in minutes. In my opinion, the cut we see on the trooper's hand looks fake because it shows no sign of dripping off the hand.

At 6:29:36 pm, Peeper's dash camera shows the red-white ladder crossing past the front door from the left. This caused me to take a closer look at Tattoo's video, where I thought the ladder was coming out the front door. It turns out I was wrong; it's coming from around the south side of the building. Door 10 in the Stewart video can be suspect as its origin, or even Door 12 at the rear hallway between buildings. The ladder enters the alley a few seconds before 6:30 pm, some 19 minutes after pow-time, and you may agree with me that this is unreasonably too long of a period for police to fail to find a ladder in that building, which should have been looked for immediately rather than waiting for ladders to arrive. Agreed? We expect a ladder(s) in all industrial buildings.

Start Jeff's video below at 3:40, and note how the radio static disappears just as the shots go off (at 6:11:32, by the way, not 6:11:33), and then, the static returns immediately after the eighth shot. It seems that the video producers artificially inserted the shots into the audio track. Then, when the tenth bullet is heard at 6:11:48, the static is absent also for it, yet static returns immediately after the shot...meaning they could have artificially added the ninth shot's sound to feign the tenth shot. Jeff doesn't mention any of this static on-and-off anomaly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeMc--LShNM&t=10s

Early in the sixth minute above, Jeff says that this dash-cam proves not many men inside the front door. Only Nicol comes out, yet by the time that he does, the Stewart video shows a dozen or so police men at the cabinet-and-skid area, begging where they came from, if not from inside the building. Everything about these movie segments, one segment to one police camera, seems like a constant and deliberate tease, yet they do combine to tell a fairly-logical storyline.

Are we now to think that a dozen men came running around the north end of the building? That would play well to Beaver's / Nicol's report that Crooks was headed for the Sheetz gas station northward from the second story. In other words, if it turns out that these dozen or so men came around from the north side, then it's a self-serving part of the script to "prove" that Crooks did go north, and then Slow Cop's video "proves" it all the more because he captures Crooks running on a northern-building roof.

However, Slow Cop blows it, like an inadvertent whistle-blower, when he merely walks to the building while watching the shooter on the roof. Slow Cop had to time his arrival to the alley before Peeper and Hoister got there, and maybe his walk is what made the two late for that show, for the hoist scene is made very quick.

In the first seconds on the video below, the soundtrack for the hoist scene is heard, no words spoken at all, suggesting its an added soundtrack, not the original. To expose the bad acting further, note that Hoister, when feigning the hoist, stands three feet from the wall onto which Peeper is supposedly being hoisted. FAKE. In a real situation, Hoister would be right beside the hallway wall, as close as possible to allow Peeper to lean toward it and touch it with his hands, otherwise Peeper is left to a balancing act in mid-air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1gNEXISFSQ

This added soundtrack with nothing spoken by Peeper only serves to reveal the hoax further. At 24 seconds above, Hoister is talking to Peeper with a happy-ish look on his face instead of concerned, but we hear no words. The director of this scene must have realized that it's best they feign that nothing was spoken because the two men are supposed to be taking the man on roof by surprise, and talking could easily be heard by the man on roof. The same type of fiddling soundtrack used for Peeper on the stones is used when he's off the stones. FAKED SOUNDTRACK. Then, when Peeper falls to the stones, there is no expected crash sound but a very mild sound similar to the rest of the soundtrack. And not only doesn't even tell Hoister and Blue Shirt that he just saw a man with gun on the roof, but he doesn't warn them to run out of the alley. FAKE.

At 14:38 of the video below, Slow Cop is pointing Peeper and Hoister into the alley with his left hand, the wrong hand. It looks more like he's pointing for his audience to look inside the alley at NO LADDER present. In a genuine situation, Slow Cop should be facing Peeper and Hoister when pointing them into the alley, and thus he should be pointing with his right hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhjrC1wzJG4

Slow Cop walks out into the parking lot with his back to the building, even though he knows there's a man on the roof, because he's knows there is no danger. He doesn't even act as though he's trying to protect the three in the alley from a possible attack by man on roof. When he finally turns around to face the alley, look at how dim the picture is. What are they hiding? The ladder in the alley, right?

I've presented the video above at this time to show that Slow Cop's camera, at 15:19, shows Peeper running out of the alley, but we do not see Hoister and Blue Shirt coming out, FAKE JOB. There is no danger in that alley, what can't this very-stupid-acting man, Jeff Ostroff, not understand about this fakery? He's either very stupid, or merely acting stupid for reasons only he knows. Take your pick.

Did you note how crisp the picture is for the run-out-of-alley scene. When they want you to see something they want you to see, suddenly the picture is crisp. It begins to go crisp during the same scene (not at a scene change) at 15:16, three seconds before the alley exit. Then the picture goes dim again at 15:26. See that?

What does Jeff think the two men are doing in there? I don't know, for he doesn't even mention this oddity. It's as though he's acting stupid. He's excited to see Slow Cop's gun to indicate danger, but Jeff is blatantly ignorant-acting when failing to ask why Hoister and Blue Shirt are still in the alley. He doesn't want his viewers to see that anomaly, because he's committed them to believe that all of what they see on cop cameras is genuine.

I don't see why it was necessary to have pow-time exactly to the second, according to schedule, but the longer the hoist scene was postponed, the longer Trump had to face toward the shooter's building in order to fake his ear-graze injury. If they did have a man running on the roof, as opposed to faking a video with one, then I suggest he went down the ladder used to apply the "blood" to the roof, and upon getting down, he joined Nicol and crew. I don't think they killed the "patsy."

This week, I've learned that there was a Butler ESU sniper on the ground at the back of the northern, red barn. He was therefore 10 seconds from Trump's guards backstage, and so when any of the other Butler police sent messages to their command center, this fellow would have heard, and should have gone to the stage to warn Trump's detail. One could argue that there was enough time even from Peeper's radio message, and we may assume strongly that security guards nationwide use a standard gun code to indicate a dire warning, such as three quick shots. Nobody used that code at the rally.

At the 19th minute of a long video this weekend by Gray Hughes, he shows a map with the Butler ESU man behind the barn, but Hughes fails to mention him when pointing out the location of other snipers, because this sniper so close to the stage is like a kick to Hughes' teeth when he mocks conspiracy theorists. The plotters arranged for Butler and the SS not to have communication, but Butler police did have communication with this sniper, twice as close to the stage as the Butler command center.

Hughes mocks that the window has "memory," that once a bullet goes through it, the window repairs itself. But Hughes doesn't want to tell viewers that, maybe, the glass was removed for the shots, then quickly replaced. This is like acid to his teeth because it's a thing all-too possible, and there's no way for him to prove that it didn't happen. The flashes themselves prove that the glass was off, what doesn't he understand about this? And that's why telling his audience that the flashes go beyond the glass is like a sledge hammer to his teeth. He's lying through his teeth, you see, because he doesn't tell the full story. What kind of a crime detective doesn't see the flashes beyond the glass? One who is USELESS, LAUGHABLE, MALICIOUS, a DEFECTIVE DETECTIVE.

Hughes essentially says: "I'm not a wacko conspiracy theorist, I just report the facts as they come out, and I don't take counter-positions." In that case, why don't you go fly a kite and let someone else do the investigation who's after the truth rather than just believing what you hear in the media? Paramount Tactic is going to host Hughes; they make a fine team. In the end, any day now, these guys will admit that there was and is a conspiracy due to the never-ending cover-ups and falsifications.

Why not just state what you believe and don't believe instead of sniping at "conspiracy theorists" willing to entertain things you don't/won't? Paramount is now saying that the conspiracy theory he rejects is the second-shooter theory, which is the one that makes Crooks a patsy to a real assassination. But Paramount may soon be willing to believe a real assassination attempt with only one shooter. In that case, shut-trap in criticizing those who suspect a second shooter, as that makes all the sense in the world in a real assassination attempt. The reality is that Hughes and Paramount want to be viewed as the ones to follow, the smartest of the bunch who use their brains more than others do. Paramount claims to be "rational," unlike conspiracy theorists. See that? CHEAP SHOT. The question is: why are they sniping cheap shots against those who see an evil plot versus mere mistakes made by SS and the police?

Paramount thinks that there could not have been a second shooter because the people near the building haven't as-yet claimed that they heard shots from two different spots. But Paramount is unwilling to stretch his mind to the point where, in an event such as this, the government is expected to pack the lawn of the buildings with their own inside-actors whose job is not to say anything about anything unless asked/paid to say it. Rather than being rational, he's closed-minded. He's the type that would yet say, "c'mon, you can't expect me to believe the government would do that." And so he's covering for the wickedness of the government whether he means to or not.

He's presents himself as the type who hears the shots in the Stewart video, and isn't willing to stretch the imagination to the point where the shots were added to the Stewart video in order to sound as though they came from the same place in order to deny a second shooter. His idea of being "real" is not to go too far into "wild." Maybe the problem is that he's too tame, as in naive. I won't criticize that. But I will criticize his being critical against a planned assassination by government, and ask why. He says there's no evidence, but accumulated government failures are already evidence, especially when coupled with government cover-ups.

Paramount says that the flashes don't look like gun flashes, but what about video doctoring? And virtually every argument he makes goes the way that the government would have pro-Trumpers go. See that? Paramount is trying to move people toward the government-stooge view even while he claims to be suspicious of government. He says the FBI is "wholly corrupt," but won't entertain that the FBI doctoring videos. What a louse. What a no-good investigator. Go fly a kite. Get lost, and let better people teach the people.

He admits there's a government cover-up, but argues that it's merely to hide the mistakes that were made. Okay, you believe that, but you let others have their say too instead of spending half your time denouncing them. I say that those who believe in a government-planned assassination attempt are already mislead far enough by their love-Trump blinders, and that the last thing needed is Hughes and Paramount turning them into conspiracy deniers.

It's possible that the flashes were tampered with in Lautner's version of the Stewart video, as well as in later versions of Stewart's original. Naturally, doctored flashes would have the purpose of making them appear something other than gun flashes, and we see them looking more like industrial-torch flames. But if a crime investigator doesn't entertain doctored video, then he's CRIPPLED, DEFECTIVE, LAUGHABLE. It's correct that a conspiracy theorist can be prone to appealing to doctored video to explain a fact in contradiction to his theories, but it's also true that denying all doctoring of videos as per government-conducted crimes is a bigger folly.

If Hughes never allows doctoring of videos to enter the investigation for fear of giving conspiracy theorists an advantage, it's at best like missing the trees for the forest. Every great detective is firstly a conspiracy theorist. Every great detective starts with theories. And when there is a crime from the government level, only a deep-state operative, or a scared ostrich preferring a head in the sand, would insist that there cannot be government-produced doctoring of video. At first, we can assume that FBI doctoring was done very sparingly for fear of getting caught. But when the FBI learned how it could easily get away with it, doctored video became more common.

The deep state wants to re-capture its superior control over the masses, i.e. like when they could easily be led to despising conspiracy theorists who exposed the deep state. Jeff, Hughes and others seem to have undertaken this task with youtube's help. Those days are now gone when conspiracy theorists are automatically despised. In many circles, the theorists (usually the best investigators) are in the driver's seat now, which is why the deep state needs to deal with them as a priority.

Is there an appropriate word for someone who states as facts the government storyline when he/she plainly sees the government amiss to the brink of severe criminality? Government STOOGE. Or, ACCOMPLICE. Or, LOYALIST.

Hughes mocks the flashes without giving a valid explanation of what they are. Even congressman Higgins, when he suggested that they are a reflection of phone-camera flashes, is wrong because the flashes go beyond the glass onto the window frame(s) for a full second. Camera flashes don't reflect off of painted aluminum, please try again. Hughes? What's wrong with you that you can't be honest about this? How did the flashes get beyond the window frame? Are you some sort of a satanic loyalist? Are you unaware that the FBI is satanic? Do you live on Mars?

What kind of creature are you that you serve the government storyline to the point of mocking those who suspect the government guilty of multiple crimes in the neighborhood of treason? What don't you understand about assassinating a competitive political foe? Is this the first time in all of earthly history that someone has attempted an assassination to get rid of the competition to the throne? Isn't an assassination a conspiracy? What kind of mental blockage ails you?

PP won't entertain the flashes as gunshots at least partly because shots from a first-story building can't explain the injuries in a bleacher. But neither does he entertain that the gun shots were not intended to hurt anyone. What kind of an investigator rules out that theory from the get-go? A fraidy cat. Someone afraid of being judged an extremist wacko. It has been the deep-state ploy all along to make theorists look like deep-dive, over-reaching, or undisciplined wackos, and PP is playing into that ploy by not entertaining a faked assassination.

The camera on Tattoo, when he slithers to the skid scene about a minute after pow-time, shows no police coming from the north, but he did happen to point his camera to the north to spot two or three men standing there, though his shot of the building a little earlier showed nobody there who could originate in the northern stretches of the building complex. After that, he comes to the skid scene with no one there, and so yes, Peeper's dash-cam "proves" that the front door wasn't housing all those men as I and others all assumed.

But wait. Just because they didn't come out the front door doesn't mean they weren't in the building, because no camera saw them outdoors until they showed up like bad actors attracted like flies to Tattoo's profanity. There are back/side doors in the northern buildings, of course.

The first two snipers come to Tattoo's camera (at skid site) from the parking lot, not from the front door, and not from behind Tattoo as his back faces north. One of them immediately "climbs" the cabinet like a gymnastic flake who's never seen sniper boot camp before. These two, in camouflage clothing, could be from Beaver county, and, if so, should be in cahoots with Nicol so far as this hoax is concerned.

Then, seconds later, three snipers arrive from behind Tattoo's back i.e. from the north, this time in black clothes. The first of the three has tattoos on his arms too, and so I'm pretty sure that these guys were hired from a two-bit strip joint. They don't convincingly look like real snipers whose task it would be to keep in top shape physically. They look like beer drinkers. Snipers don't just shoot, they also arrest people, climb into windows, climb onto rooves, you get it, they need to be strong and capable. No sooner do these three arrive that they go, with three camo snipers and one policeman, into the alley. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM, all of them arriving to the skid row, then bango they file into gang alley to begin the revelation of the dead man on the roof?

If these man came from the two vehicles that pulled in between pow-time and skid-time, why did the two vehicles park way up yonder north, away from skid row? Why waste all those precious seconds making the snipers walk to skid row? Perhaps, because we're not supposed to see the license plates of the vehicles.

How could two car loads of snipers have been so handy that they should arrive a minute or two after pow-time? If they came from the stage area, why drive by car when they could just run and jump the fence? Don't tell me that snipers can't jump a five-foot fence just because it has no top rail. I did it many times as a kid / teen. You grab and climb, put a leg over the top, then lean over and fall to the ground. Snipers should be very familiar with climbing such fences.

If Butler's central command was not in the building, then at least there should have been a top Butler-police boss at the site of these buildings. Why did they give Tattoo a triple-chevron officer who did nothing but look sob-sob dismal and stand alone once the skid scene was called off? Doesn't three chevrons look like a boss to you? Why wasn't he looking like a boss?

PP put on a show about blood in the bathroom and a second shooter, filled with suspense, only to have another video the next day saying that a tiny bit of blood (shown plainly on a camera, what are the chances?) on a state trooper's hand was apparently formed when cutting his hand on the fence nearer to the stage (there were two fences). PP then shows that this state trooper did go into the front door...bathroom-blood mystery solved, he says.

A lot of his viewers aren't buying PP's solution. I suggest that the plotters had a back-up plan in case some of the fake blood was discovered in the building from an accidental spill. They would feign a policemen with "injury," you see, but they then had to form an excuse on getting him into the building, because, if it was not central command in there, officers need a reason for going in.

I suggest that the problem with the fake blood is its need to be quick-dry so that a dummy could be slid upon it a minute or less later without showing the slide markings. I think the dummy had to be slid up the roof rather than having someone carry it to the spot and laying it down, for the latter option makes the carrier visible over the peak. So, having a man laying low to the roof, he slid the dummy to as far as possible without the head visible over the peak.

Let's imagine Nicol being the blood applier. He has his excuse for leaving his window post, because he was chasing after Crooks. He climbs a ladder to the roof, probably from within the enclosure, pours the blood on the roof, and when he gets to the ground, his accomplice is ready to plant the dummy. After planting the dummy, the accomplice takes the police ladder back to the second story, no need for the red-white ladder here.

In the meantime, Nicol goes to pour the remaining blood down the bathroom drain, yet he also needs to rinse the container to get rid of all evidence. He gets some of the quick-dry on the floor or wall, maybe, and the more he wipes it, the more he makes a mess of things because it dries too quick. The paper towels get red, and he flushes them down the toilet, maybe leaving a red stain around the rim of the water. He then goes out the front door about two minutes after pow-time, illogical so that he needs a good reason for doing so, because the shots were on the roof of that very building, and we expect him to run up the stairs to his gun at the window, if he was on the lower floor at that time.

If he says he was on the stairs toward the second story when the shots rang out, he's expected all the more to continue up. If he was already on the second floor, he's expected to man his gun there for a lot longer than two minutes. Yet he walks out the front door some two minutes after pow-time. ILLOGICAL, unless he's waiting for Trooper to arrive. .

Maybe his plan was to go outside, then have his buddy open the door for him once he saw the trooper arrive. But before Trooper arrived, four other men got into the front door (I'm not sure if this was part of Nicol's hopes/plan), and apparently, one or more of them was in the bathroom.

The problem for the plotters is that a wee-wee cut on the hand makes no bathroom stain to speak of that starts a rumor about a second shooter. That rumor needs a surprising / unusual amount of blood to make a person ask, "what's going on here?"

Beaver's time line of events said that Nicol went down to "patrol" on the first floor. Doesn't that sound like a headquarters of sorts? Why do we see four men trying to get in four minutes after pow-time? What business would they have in the offices of a glass factory that's more important than remaining outdoors at that time? Apparently, Nicol called the plotters by phone and said something like: "uh-oh, I got blood on the bathroom floor/wall, bring in Trooper, we'll arrange the open door." But before Trooper arrives, four other man enter. Why? Unless one of these four snitched on the bathroom blood, we probably would not have heard about it, unless for some nutty reason we are being toyed with (teased) concerning it.

So they arranged a phony radio message that alerts to a second shooter in the building (how could this not be a faked call?), which allows Trooper to get into the building when the snipers pour in. His cut scene can be seen starting at 8:00 here (the wee-wee cut is shown at 9:42):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z2yygt9Ues

There's a different blood stain on a different part of his hand shown in the tenth minute, with no dripping. It's just another nothing-burger cut that needs no attention; it could be a paste job unless we think it's genuine that there should be two captures of blood on the hand of the same man. Why is Trooper standing in front of, or entering, the alley for this second blood shot?

At 11:06, a third shot of blood on his hand, now on yet a different part of this hand...I call fakery, PP calls it problem solved. In order to capture this third blood shot, an officer needs to be with his back on the building's EAST wall (it faces the parking lot), for Trooper is standing at the entry into the alley, for we can see the tree at that alley beside him. The sun comes through between the tree and the north wall, and Trooper is in full sunlight here, with no way for the camera to be capturing him from inside the alley. So, the question is, why would the officer with camera be standing with back/shoulder on the north wall, unless the purpose is to catch the blood stain in a pose made for the purpose?

Latest Police-Camera Releases

With the sudden release of so many police cameras, we get the impression that this was indeed a movie. This week saw the release of a movie that saw the two snipers turn around to aim at Crooks, the snipers credited with killing him with one shot.

But before we get to that, while you still have Peeper's dash-cam video loaded, let's talk about four and a half minutes (6:16:04 pm) after pow-time, long before the SS units arrive with their police (black) ladder, when the dash-cam shows (7:20) a camo-sniper carrying another police ladder of a similar type (not identical). In Tattoo's camera, we see this camo-sniper passes the ladder to Tattoo, who puts it onto the cabinet (not a mark on it, the cabinet looks like it was bought that morning).

As per the dash-cam, this ladder is first seen carried from the left side of the front door, and therefore could have come from inside the building i.e. it might have been used in setting up the roof hoax. By bringing it to Tattoo, the ladder is out of the building and thus no longer serves as a rich piece of evidence against the hoax...unless someone spots the ladder coming from within the building, and I think the dash-cam effectively does catch that fact.

In the sixth minute up until 7:16, at four and a quarter minutes after pow-time (6:15:14), the Stewart video is capturing the hole in the fence that allows people from the stage area to enter the lawn, but no black ladder can be seen. Moreover, nobody can be seen approaching the fence with a ladder who could possibly make it arrive before 6:16:04. This argues for this black ladder coming from within the building, and since a camouflaged sniper is carrying it (best seen in Tattoo's camera), it could be from Beaver ESU, the company suspect in setting up the fake blood. I heard that these types of ladders are police ladders (fit nice in trunks), and so what's a police ladder doing inside the building??? I think I know, don't you?

At 6:19 pm, the man in suit, who made the Stewart cameraman stop rolling his camera at the 7:16 video point above, has arrived to Tattoo, and this man in suit is then shown eyeing the black ladder as it sits non-telescoped on the cabinet, where Tattoo placed it.

In Tattoo's video, Tattoo and Triple Chevron just stand around doing nothing for a while after hearing that men got up to the roof on the red-white ladder. Tattoo is uninterested in going into the alley to check out the exciting action...because the director of the movie doesn't want us to see the red-white ladder. When that action is over, the red-white ladder is pulled to the roof and hidden, probably down into the enclosure.

Soon, Man in Suit is seen coming alone toward Tattoo, suggesting that we are now to the next part of his script, to get Man in Suit to the roof with this black ladder to "prove" yet again that there's no red-white ladder in the alley, otherwise Man in Suit would have gone up with that one.

The video below shows Butler's central command at a very bad spot for the hoax, just 100 yards south of the stage, allowing any officer in that building to run to the stage to warm Trump with a couple of minutes to spare, from the time that Slow Cop sees the shooter on the roof. In this way and others, police cameras don't let Butler police off the hook, but instead incriminate it.

A couple of weeks ago, I had read, "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.". That's where the video below locates it too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtSO-pTBw4

The police-cam above shows an ambulance the second the cop exits FOP's front door. Do Trump's rallies call an ambulance as a general rule to stand by, just in case, or is that ambulance there because the cops know that there will be faked injuries, and town police doesn't want to disturb the town by blaring sirens from far off for what is merely a "gag."

[Insert -- Before going on, Hughes put out another video Sunday evening to show that the timestamp of this cop's camera had the shots going off around 6:11:43 pm, some 10 or 11 seconds after pow-time on other cop timestamps, and this works with my claim above that the shots were in fact at the flashes, 10 seconds after pow-time as per my version of the Stewart video. I'll show this Hughes' video below, where he messes his audience around with the timestamp probably because he realizes there's a massive problem here that he doesn't want to admit to. End insert]

This video shows Crooks' head over the roof peak during the ten seconds between the ninth and tenth shot...if we want to be suckers to believe it. I have another video below to show it, because it's too small to see it here unless you can enlarge the picture. The owner of this video channel is a stuck-up mocker of conspiracy theorists, and the police cams gave him many opportunities to mock them. The sudden and rash-like fall-out of the videos, very uncommon in policeland, seems to have as a partial purpose to trap and shame conspiracy theorists who claim a staged event. Police-cam videos released "prove" it wasn't staged by the material found within them, yet they also prove a staged event by the folly found within them.

Why does this video block the stage from being seen with video segments that you would rather not see at this time? Who would be so nasty to the viewer as to do that? The video owner doesn't even say why there are blinders on the left half of the screen.

This is the first body camera concerning this crime that I've seen without a wide-angle lens. The reason seems obvious, because the plotters don't want distortion when showing Crooks and the police on the tiny roof you can see.

The cop with camera doesn't look immediately to the stage when the shots ring out (the shot sounds were added to the video by video owner, just to show the timing as compared to this footage). This video is trash, therefore, LAUGHABLE, because the officer doesn't face the stage at the shots, yet Gray Hughes thinks he's the smart one for denying a conspiracy. If Gray Hughes were at least smart enough to keep a conspiracy as an option, as he views the police videos, he would have noticed the officer's omission.

Finally, when the cop is given the green light to capture backstage, the left-side blinders, though much smaller, exactly hide the back of the stage. This is like telling the world: THIS IS A HOAX. "We can't let you see what happened because THIS IS A CRIME that could get us in trouble if we're caught."

Other evidence that this camera is part of the movie is where the cop happens to be standing where the dead man, Corey Comperatore, is carried away. It's very dishonoring how they are carrying him, but I suspect it's a dummy. See 8:35. Note the poor quality of the image as they walk by, a sure sign that the deep state is responsible for the image. When the deep state uses a video section for it's own agenda, suddenly the view is crisp. There's nothing else to speak of in the rest of the video, don't bother watching, is my advice. Go have a carrot, much more enjoyable.

Okay, so we have a once-in-a-lifetime assassination attempt on an American president, and this cop is totally uninterested in capturing the scene on the stage. Realistic? Instead, he's taking pictures of the cranes, trucks and tents. Ya-ya sure-sure. But he happens to be capturing the roof a few seconds before the shots ring out, and a little head, we are to believe, can be seen over the peak; see Gray Hughes below, who is apparently claiming that he discovered the head all by his lonesome, making me wonder whether he's working for the deep state (I'm not familiar with him):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyfuZNtzJ5Q

First of all, even if that black blip is a human head, it doesn't necessarily deny no conspiracy of one type or another, and so stuck-up "investigators" such as Gray Hughes need not rejoice on account of this video, because this "evidence" could not convict anyone in a court of law these days, especially as a black blip can be inserted into a video. What if that's the head of Greg Nicol posing for this camera? he pours the blood, and/or lays the dummy, then pokes his head above the peak to feign Crooks' head. Why can't that have taken place?

Did you notice that this cop hides the window-with-flashes? Did you notice that his camera wasn't pointing at the building when the shots rang out? The necklace-like object hung in that window was possibly there when this blip appears on the peak, explaining why two different things, including a person, is blocking that window from our view. There is a small point at 3:15 when the window is visible, but the scene is too blurred to see whether there's anything in the window.

How convenient that the camera no longer shows the roof at the tenth killer-shot? And in Hughes' previous video featured above, one of the blinders hides our view of the roof during the first shot, and most of those which follow, and especially the flashes in the window. Is that scene, but without blinder, for another $$$video$$$ to be made later?

Why would Butler police wait a month to release this video with a camera pointed to the roof at precisely the gun shots? Why doesn't Hughes show us a close up of the roof during some of those eights shots? Is that for another $$$video$$$ later?

Hughes is not looking very correct to say that the head is exactly where the blood stain was. The stain was closer to the second window (than the black blip is) he talks about at about 5:00. The head looks like it's some 12 feet or more to our left of that window. I don't think the stain was that far over, in case you want to look into it. I'll do it for you.

At the 1:18 point of the video below, you can see, if you slow to one-quarter speed, a vertical steel column at the far end of the hallway roof. That column (rises from ground level) is 35 feet away from the front of the building, according to my calculations, because all five columns across the length of this 140-foot building are 35 feet apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-ua8XZEB8

Now, see 6:27 of this aerial with the four of the five steel columns showing on the south side of the building. The first shown column from the right side is the building's second column, matching the column above at the far end of the hallway roof i.e. both columns are 35 feet from the front of the building.

Don't lose the aerial above, but, on another browser tab, load this aerial with bloodstain on roof (45 seconds) to see that the back edge of the hallway roof is 17 roof ridges from the front, which discloses that all ridges are two feet apart because 17 x 2 is essentially 35 feet. Then see that the bloodstain is only two roof ridges = four feet from the back of the hallway roof.

Now go back to the aerial without blood stain to see that the steel column, 35 feet from the front of the building, is two feet from the center of a window, meaning that the blood stain is only two feet to our left of the center of the window. However, the little black blip that's supposed to be the head of Crooks looks a lot more than two feet over from the center of the window. Is it a sloppy paste job? Are the officers on the roof likewise pasted in? The cop's camera that's capturing the blip is on a near-90-degree line with this building's wall so that the blip should not appear so far to the viewers left of the window. It looks like they have the blip some five feet to the left of where the stain was.

Where Hughes shows the blip on a close-up, at 4:00 (it gets blurrier at 4:01), one can see roof ridges, to the left of his purple arrow, pointing straight to the camera; that's where the building's wall is at a 90-degree angle (perpendicular) to the camera. From this arrow, there are about three roof ridges, or six feet, from where the stain was. That for me is more than enough of an error to prove that this blip is a paste job. (That's not a pipe he points out, by the way. It's a camera aberration of some sort.)

Okay, in Hughes' Sunday video, he says that the cop's timestamp seems 10 seconds out of whack, but then concludes on 12 seconds out. Instead of saying that the shots were faked in the other videos such that both Trump's voice and the shots were added soundtracks 10 seconds earlier than the real pow-time, he is suggesting that, somehow, this one cop's timestamp was wrong, 10 or 12 seconds later than the real time. See that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TOR17hXMZk

At 6:40 above, when the first shot goes off, this cop camera happens to be looking straight at both Crooks and the officer whose being reported as taking the ninth shot, what an obvious load of scripted movie making. And Hughes removes the timestamp a few seconds before the first shot so that we can't see exactly the REAL time of the first shot. This ninth shot is not a genuine event, even though it's a possible shot, because so much screams choreography aside from this shot.

By the way, when I was covering the Boston-Marathon bombing, I read that false flag operations always come with water bottles in the deep-state camera shots, as a sort of signals to insiders that this is staged production. You see a giant bottle just as the officer is feigning the ninth shot at 7:05. You see other bottles before that. His water bottle shows at 9:07 a few seconds before the first shot.

In bravado, the actor pretending to shoot Crooks' gun at the ninth shot raises his arm in triumph after the tenth shot kills Crooks, yet in a genuine situation, he could not possibly know whether he or the other sniper killed the shooter fatally or critically enough, according to the slight injuries we see on the dead man's face. In fact, this sniper himself missed the shooter, as the report goes. In a genuine assassination attempt, he would stay on sight of the shooter, and shoot again (that's what you would do), and especially as the roof is mere aluminum and plywood. Shoot a few more times just to make sure, right? Of course. But after his first shot, nothing more from him. FAKE. There were no bullets, because the factory owner agreed to do the hoax without holes in his roof. The more shots they feigned, the more the public would expect holes in the building(s), and so the plotter's decided on magic-bullet shots.

There is a timestamp blip that one can see at 10:52 if the video is placed at quarter speed and paused at that time. The first shot was about a second earlier, and the timestamp reads 6:11:46 pm, 14 seconds after pow-time on the Stewart video. But the way in which this timestamp is presented for a split-second, then sidelined out of sight, is suspicious, as if Hughes is arranging for it to be more than the ten seconds that it truly was pas Stewart's first shot. It's extremely important that this goof-up doesn't show the first shot at 6:11:42, because the flashes in the Stewart video go off at that time. And both the cops and Hughes know this, which is why they would strive to make the first shot go off at 6:11:45 instead.

If you go back to this video's first minute, Hughes says that this cop's video is "actually 12 seconds ahead of the actual time." Achem, is he saying the cop's camera has a timestamp 12 seconds off? I doubt it's off. And Hughes knew about this when he first presented this video earlier in the week, but is now pretending that he didn't know about it. Hughes is attentive to detail, and so this pretension is not passing the sniff test. He was indeed keeping an eye on this camera's time stamp when he first studied it over and over earlier in the week. And that's why he didn't present the timestamp in his first video. He may have left it out of his second video also, and here in his third video he's playing show-but-hide the time stamp.

After he makes the statement above in quotes, he tells that a caller made him see the light, that the timestamp was not jibing with the shots as presented in other videos. So, a caller forced him to admit that the timestamp was not jibing. But instead of realizing or admitting that the other cameras feigned the shots at 6:11:32/33, he says that this cop's timestamp is in error.

Even in this video, he fails to just let the camera roll without pausing it so that we can count the seconds, using youtube's timer, between the timestamp's 6:11:32 point, and the first shot. I do not trust the timestamp that Hughes allows us to see for a split second. I want to count the seconds exactly for myself between 6:11:32 and the first shot. He makes it virtually impossible in this video.

Why does Hughes mess around with the views when the camera shots backstage in the 4th minute? Is there something backstage we're not to spot? In the early 5th minute, he allows us to see the timestamp.

At this time, Hughes incriminates the cop who has this camera on his chest by suggesting that he starts to run just as Peeper calls in his radio about a man with gun on the roof. Hughes is suggesting that when he hears this radio call, he's prone to running to get a camera shot of the roof. However, instead of running to get a camera shot of the actors, on behalf of the movie makers, he should be shooting his gun as a warning to others that there's a man on roof. He should be shooting his mouth off about a man with gun on the roof. Hughes doesn't say this because he's looking like an insider more and more as he opens his yap to TELL the viewer what to think. For all we know, this video wasn't produced by Hughes, but by the FBI and then given to Hughes to present with instructions.

At the start of 5:49 video time, Hughes removes the timestamp, after having left it for some time. The cop-camera timestamp of 6:11:32 (Stewart's pow-time) shows originally at the start of 5:48. All we want to know is how many seconds goes by, after 6:11:32, on this cop's camera before it hears the first shot.

I've meticulously counted the cop-camera time between the start of 5:48 until the first shot at the end of 6:22, after removing the periods that Hughes pauses the youtube video. It worked out to 12 seconds of camera time, not the 10 I need to prove that the real first shot was at flash-time.

The problem is, Hughes does not show the timestamp after 5:49, but for a blip at 6:16, and at the latter time, it's not the true timestamp that we see at the top of the camera at 5:45, where it's to the far-right at the top. At 6:16, it shows at the far-left of the picture, something's wrong with this. It seems that someone has inserted the timestamp at 6:16 into the youtube video artificially. Why would they do that?

And were two seconds of "real time" added that should not be there? Did they slow the audio slightly (while not slowing the visual) so that the 10 seconds was lengthened to 12? Could be.

In fact, the standing sniper is already seen walking to his shoot-position one second before the shot is heard, meaning that he could have started walking two seconds before the shot was heard...because the real shot took place two seconds earlier than this video has it sounded.

The odd timestamp shows the second of 6:11:39 pm beginning in the middle of 6:16 youtube time, and as the first gunshot is heard 6.5 seconds later, at the end of 6:22, this timestamp demands that the shot went off at 6:11:44.5 pm, 14.5 seconds after Stewart's pow-time of 6:11:32. Yet I meticulously used this video to find that there was only a 12-second gap between 6:11:32 and the first shot. Something is wrong, but shouldn't be if there's no tricks being played. It appears that the timestamp at 6:16 was pasted in to the youtube video at the wrong time, 2.5 second off. It appears pasted because it was pasted. Every paste job risks exposing itself with an error.

One bottom line here is that Hughes and Jeff would mock people for suggesting that police timestamps are not accurate when there is a case to be made for it, yet here they are saying that the timestamp was 12 seconds inaccurate when it suits their storyline.

At the early second minute in Jeff's video of this cop-camera, we see the cop placing his hand beside two bottles. He puts his hand so unexpectedly RIGHT BESIDE the two bottles, and one of them, at least, is a water bottle. At 2:27, he puts his own bottle beside the two while his camera is showing the shooter's building. Nobody at this time has any concern whatsoever with the freak-out at the stage. They act in bravado for killing the shooter even though they can't as yet know they killed him. They couldn't as yet know that there wasn't a second gunman, yet the celebrating sniper walks in the field all alone like a dead duck. FAKE. And this cop doesn't even go to the stage to see what happened there. FAKE. He doesn't go there because the plotters don't want to risk the public seeing what's there, such as the faked killing of Comperatore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3kAFu3sU6Q

As usual, Jeff acts the idiot who emphasizes nothing terribly suspicious, and often doesn't even point it out briefly. Yet here he manages to admit that officers come out of the tent late, more than 1.5 minutes after the shots. Could you imagine, an assassination attempt, and they just stay in the tent for that long. Sure, they will devise an excuse. Jeff doesn't tell that this is the tent into which Comperatore will be carried momentarily, and he doesn't mention that these cops are headed for the bleacher where Comperatore was supposedly killed. This is Jeff the stooge see-nothing say-nothing. This very cop was stationed where he is, told not to go to the stage, but to wait until Comperatore is carried into the tent right before him, in order to capture it on camera. This is the big leverage the deep state wants against congress for taking rifles away from the public.

At 2:57, the camera pans from the stage to the three pop bottles, honing in on them. Ask: why would this cop be facing the bottles instead of the stage, as the officers run to the Comperatore's bleachers?

At least three officers, all donning the same uniform suspect with state police, run out of the tent, and perhaps one of them is the guy who feigned a cut on his hand. Perhaps he was at the bleacher with fake blood, and so his job was to touch it, then climb a fence to "explain" how the blood got on his hand.

At 5:27 of Jeff's video above, a giant water bottle POPS UP into view just as the five shots go off. A president just got shot, but, no worries, just keep holding that bottle, no need to replace it in hand with your gun.

Tom Knights, "Manager, Butler County," said in a news show that even Hoister radioed "a blanket tactical channel" (Knights' words) = all Butlers officers and central command too, concerning shooter with gun seen by Peeper. Yet this other Butler cop, walking out of central command, doesn't do the right thing by going to the stage, but instead takes his orange drink to stand it up beside other bottles. Jeff, you are either stupid, or too ashamed to admit you've been wrong, or one of the deep-state's wicked stooges.

At 7:30, Jeff shows the window visible that had the flashes, and this window is actually visible at the first shot, to my surprise. Jeff shows the scene for the second shot at 7:32 while seemingly claiming it's the first, and then shows the third shot claiming it to be the second. Compare with the three shots starting at 1:34. Jeff has the timestamp showing at 6:11:46 for the first shot, 14.5 seconds at pow-time in the Stewart video.

As the flashes go off ten seconds after the first shot at 6:11:32 of the Stewart video, we could expect the first shot in this cop-camera footage to be at the end of 6:11:41. Just a thought. I've enlarged the video as large as I can before youtube forbids it, and I see NOTHING of Peeper in front of the building (at 1:34/35), where he was when the shots went off in the Stewart video. I therefore assume that Peeper has run to his car by the time we hear the shots in this cop camera because we're about ten seconds later than the Stewart video.

Neither Jeff nor Gray Hughes gives us a close-up of the building at the first shot, not even the roof where the shooter's supposedly getting shot, which is more than strange, don't you think? Maybe they noticed that Peeper's not there, yet they don't want you to know. If he's really not there, then these two men need to apologize to their audience, and to conspiracy theorists. If he's not there, and if he's in his car getting his gun, then he was instructed to act like he heard the shots 10 seconds earlier than they rang out in order to discredit the first three shots causing the flashes.

I don't even see Stewart's red shirt at the first shot. Two seconds before the first shot, Stewart is running rightward toward the tree at the extreme right end of the building that you see in Jeff's video at 1:32-33. I DO NOT see Stewart there, and this time is two seconds before the first shot in Jeff's video. ??? Two seconds before the first shot, Peeper is crossing the lawn leftward about even with the extreme right end of the building, same general spot as Stewart (the two can be seen in the same shot), and therefore Peeper should be easily visible when the first shot goes off in Jeff's video, but as he doesn't seem to be there, snotty Hughes and goof-up Jeff look like they've been had.

If the two do appear in the cop camera, but are too faint / fuzzy for me to see, note that the cop supposedly puts his hand over the camera at 1:33 (we can't see anything for a split-second), which may be a hand pasted in because the plotters altered / spliced the video at that very point, and don't want us to see something amiss or changing. The reason for the alteration would be to add the visual track of Peeper and Stewart at the building, 10 seconds earlier, because they are not really there, with the white building in their background, when the shots go off. The two men should reach about halfway to the bottom edge of the roof. I don't seem them.

Immediately after the first shot, the building disappears from view. How convenient, how suspicious.

We've also got to consider that the flashes may not be visible from this distance on this poor-quality footage, and that the plotters arranged a quality poor enough to make them invisible. The capturing of the flashes can be part of the plot in case anyone ends up in court. The flashes can prove that this was a faked shooting, i.e. nobody on the roof took any shots; it was an officer from within the factory.

As it would have been difficult to produce this window blockage with a body-cam, perhaps this officer is carrying a camera in hand that allows him to see what's being captured, and to manipulate it to hide the flashes. It could be a light camera that can by clipped to his body, but also removed for a hand-holding option.

Here's the pretend arrest of the Stewart cameraman with red shirt, to make him look like an outsider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeslFHonW5E

In the video above, at 7 PM, the police take a few actors away in police cars in what looks like a precursor to showing them on another camera, later, giving their testimony as to what happened, for the purpose of clinching the faked plot as a real one, and/or protecting the police department from being exposed as an accomplice to the hoax. The police officers taking them away don't need to be privy to the hoax. If they were not actors, police would have come to remove them from the site earlier than 7 o'clock.

Stewart is already online interviewing the guy in yellow shirt who appears in this video above. The guy in yellow shirt names an officer Graham of state police as the leader of the on-site team, and PP identified Graham as possibly the guy with cut on his hand. How could a state policeman be in charge of a team employing Butler police?

Someone in the comments section of the video above: "When listening to the video of dead shooter and police officers videotaping the dead shooter on the roof, it seems to me that the policeman with the camera asked about the blood downstairs. An officer responded that the bloodbath was from the suspect. Important information." I agree, the fake blood was faked to be that of the shooter, and the police may have taken a sample of that blood to prove in court, if ever needed in court, that it was fake blood, i.e. no killing took place.

The Hill has a video, "Intentional Or Incompetence? New Video Footage Of Trump Shooter REVEALED." Phony is not an option. Nowhere in main media is phony an option, not even in big-Democrat media even though Democrat voters are inclined to push a faked assassination to quell Trump's popularity. This indicates that the deep state does not want to push a faked assassination on the public because it was indeed faked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aL0FShQT4&t=24s

The video above starts with the first hoist scene. I'd like to add some of the problems that I see with this hoist. Not only is Hoister wrongly three feet away from the Hallway's wall, but he's got his back bent over beyond horizontal to the ground. It's as though he's doing a bad fake job of crossing his hands (or fingers) to lift Peeper. Every kid who's given a friend a boost with crossed hands knows that you start with hands at or above knee level, and you want your back as upright and rigid as possible with knees a little bent so that straightening them out starts the lift.

But Hoister can be gleaned so low with his head to the ground that he'll need to bend his back upright while lifting. WRONG. It's not done that way unless you're lifting someone very light. His back needs to be erect, or Peeper's body will fall back away from Hoister. When you see Hoister feigning the lift, you can get the sense that Peeper's going to be more pushed away from Hoister than lifted up. No sooner does Hoister get his hands too low that he comes immediately up TOO FAST, not expected with 160-180 pounds of Peeper in his hands.

The way to do this is to hold crosses fingers as high as possible for Peeper to jump up with his right foot, but we don't see this. Hoister is supposed to use the upward jump from Peeper's left leg as the launch for getting him as high as necessary/possible.

In the early hoist scene, Peeper's hand can be seen on Hoister's back, and then on the back of his neck. That's an appropriate fake job. Then, when Peeper puts his left foot on a ladder to go upward a little, his arms are missing from the picture for too long before we see his right arm going toward the top of the roof. Where do we expect his arms when Hoister is holding his weight and lifting him? We expect them immediately toward the wall so that body weight tends to go toward the wall rather than leaning = falling in the opposite direction. Peeper wants to assure that he's going to lean toward the wall, and so there needs to be more weight toward the wall than in the opposite direction, which is why his natural tendency -- if he has any athletic coordination at all -- would be to get arms to the wall. We don't see that in either arm.

We don't expect his arms stretched out like a bird's wings to his sides. He's climbing the ladder when we don't see his arms in the early part of the "hoist." His left hand cannot be on the building beside him because he ends up at the roof at the sixth siding ridge, which is six feet from the neighboring building, roughly in the center of the alley. His left hand can't reach the building unless he's falling over.

Then, when he feigns a fall from roof to stones, he barely gets his hands to the stones. From the 11-foot height in which he falls, with feet seven or eight feet from the ground, the landing should be more brutal than gentle. But he didn't even fall, it's obvious. The camera shows that he didn't turn 180-degrees during his descent, for it camera shows the siding of the hallway for the descent until it hows the very bottom corner where hallway meets building, and we even see some stones at that point. We therefore expect his feet on the ground while he's facing the corner, you see. DO YOU SEE THAT?

It's more likely that he was already on the ground before turning toward the corner because, while falling with his front facing the hallway, it's not the natural inclination to shift position toward the corner while in mid-air. Shifting position in mid air is going to make him less prepared to take the landing. On the way down, a person is already preparing to get the best (safest) landing possible, but shifting the body to face leftward during the fall only increases risk of bodily damage. In fact, it was safer to land with front facing the wall and to fall backward on his back after alleviating the fall as much as possible with his legs. If he landed facing the corner, he would have gone to the stones sideways, but this is not what we see in his camera. Instead, he acts as though he landed facing the exit, with a full 180-turn in mid air, which I don't think is possible seeing that the camera faces the wall on the trip down.

His palms don't grind into the stones as expected, his body doesn't go to the stones as expected; only the tips of his fingers go to the stones, LAUGHABLE FAKE JOB. All he's doing is bending over and pressing his fingers to the stones, after descending a ladder.

Again, both Hoister and Blue Shirt are in that alley, but neither show in the camera on the descent. We expect Blue Shirt holding Peeper's left foot because Hoister is at Peeper's right side, and yet Blue Shirt is not to Peeper's left side when he falls leftward. Don't we expect Blue Shirt to step backward from the hallway wall, once Peeper starts to fall unexpectedly? YES. But he's not there. Instead, he's probably removed the ladder, and is standing to the side, out of camera view.

All sorts of people visited the shooter's building, and were promptly kicked off or told they couldn't visit, yet The Hill video features Benny Johnson on the roof showing us that the blood stain remains in a non-red condition. We see the stain, and it's faint, not red. Does blood do that on painted aluminum? Is blood like acid that it should etch the paint? I doubt it. And so we need to ask: why did the glass factory allow Johnson onto the roof? Was it because he came with a congressman, Florida's Corey Mills? It could be that Johnson would have been rejected from going to the roof, but that the congressman forced to visit.

Or, the visit could be a part of the staging to continue to make Trump voters furious. It seems to me that even Trump himself is seeking to lump Christian voters in with gun-toting militants amongst pro-Trumpers, and that the Democrat goal is to egg the militants into organized combat using repeated, feigned persecution of Trump.

In the backdrop, there is an Israeli-Iranian conflict that could bring more Russian fighters to Syria. Not much is going on in Ukraine, out of the ordinary, but that situation has Russian fighters poised at the north Caucasus, near Syria. It looks like Gog and Magog because we could expect Russia coming in to help Iran against Israel. Once in Syria, Gog gets an evil desire to spoil Israel of its wealth. Gog is not necessarily a Russian president, but could be a war general in Syria who proves to be outstanding in his war strategies.

A Pennsylvania congressman and pro-Trumper, Mike Kelly, was denied a visit to the shooting site. He's now the "Chairman of the Bipartisan House Task Force on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump." In his interview with CBS Pittsburgh, he told that Crooks' body was cremated, no autopsy verification possible. He also implied a "broken window" on the second story, suggesting that the plotters made the nearest window to the blood stain inoperable, or perhaps the east-facing window from which snipers could step foot onto the roof.

There is yet to be explained how the shooter's head ended up four feet from the peak. We can assume that Butler police released the body-cam footage of the cop exiting headquarters, the one capturing the blip, because the plotters had decided to use it to show how to explain this mystery. We've heard already that the ninth shot was from a local officer that missed Crooks, but somehow made him draw backward, and in the meantime he lifted his head high so that an SS sniper could get him with the tenth shot. But now we have more movie stuff where the news video below claims that the officer's shot hit Crooks' gun, hahaha, such great entertainment for the naive. Drink it up, Jeff, so much fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAZhlIG7XoA

Bullet grazes ear lobe with the faintest of injury. Bullet solidly hits assassin's gun from 300 feet. First sniper shot made in a fast-and-mad panic puts out shooter's lights from 450 feet. Only in hollywood.

The start of the ninth minute in PP's video below is telling on how the hoax was produced, if true that SS "REJECTED" radio communication with Butler and Beaver. However, Butler and Beaver allowed themselves to be cut off of radio communication, and it seems overwhelming to me that both police forces were in on the hoax with the SS, explaining why Butler has yet to come out to blame SS for lack of radio communication. It seems that, as part of the plot, SS is to publicly blame the police, and Butler to publicly blame the SS, for the "failure," but this shows that the deep state is willing to look incompetent for the "greater" goals that this hoax hopes to provide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mJ84w5Itks

Unfortunately, this hoax is informing the deep state that it has super control over congressmen and Internet censorship to keep the truth -- a faked assassination -- subdued.

In PP's video above, he admits that the shooting looks "intentional." It's not his final verdict, but he's openly stating that it looks that way. Which is the heavier accusation, that the SS was involved in a real assassination, or a faked one? As the latter is the lesser of the two evils, why isn't it an option for PP? What's the proof that Trump was shot? A little blood on his ear after he huddles at the podium with a half-dozen people any of which could have painted his ear? I have found nobody amongst the youtube regulars who even want to discuss the ear blood or the non-injury to his ear. Hello? Is everyone completely stupid? The ear was fully healed in less than ten days??? HELLO STUPIDS, must you appear this stupid? Have you no shame?

See also the yellow writing at the end of the 10th minute, where Butler police reminds the SS to pick up radios that allow inter-communication, yet SS does not pick them up. It seems that, as part of their part in the hoax, Butler was covering its butt and preparing to shift blame on the SS, if the SS started to shift blame on Butler. Besides, this information is not necessarily being let out willingly by Butler, but could have been forced out by congressional oversight.

By blaming each other, it gives appearances of not conspiring together, an old trick of conspiring politicians.

Now we know what Rowe meant when he said that communication from police to SS got "stuck." No apparent blame on police, just made to look like a "failure" when in fact both sides are guilty of setting up a non-communicable situation. In a genuine failure by the SS, Butler could have asked for the phone number of the SS command center, at the very least. Just think of it: Butler is assigned by the SS the only possible place where a gun could hit Trump, and Butler goes into it without a way to contact SS...because it was necessary, for the hoax, that Peeper, Hoister, Blue Shirt, Tattoo, Nicol, and others not contact SS.

After congress came out of the gate going after the SS chief, nothing. No more fury. Nobody else at the SS has been named as the chief person responsible for the "failures." Rowe isn't mentioning any names, perhaps because he is the name.

PP asks a good and pertinent question where the SS snipers turn their guns toward the shooter's roof almost 1.5 minutes (prior to hoist time) before pow-time. It then begs how the SS headquarters got the message of a danger at the factory at that "early" time, if there was no possible radio communication from anyone at the factory. Expect the deep state (this is not SS working alone) to put the best-possible face on this.

Fifteenth minute: Rowe told Ron Johnson that the SS did not record communications with Butler, how convenient for the crime. Still, someone at the SS command center knows how the message arrived, and from whom, to make the SS snipers turn around in time to shoot the shooter before he had time to rip the flesh off of the SS guards at the stage. It's a movie, folks. The deep state has its own movie-making teams. The evil is that it learns, from each hoax conducted, to improve the hoaxes.

In the 18th minute, congressman Clay Higgins says that he personally investigated the flashes at the window, and the window itself "inside and out." He says that this window does not open. He says there's nothing amiss. When Gray Hughes got wind of this story, he took advantage by sticking it to conspiracy theorists just the way he likes to, but he fails to tell his audience what he ought to know, that the glass factory is partially owned by BlackRock, the same company that paid Thomas Crooks to appear in a BlackRock commercial. Therefore, it's likely that the person(s) working in the office where flashes appeared is complicit with the hoax.

A window that does not open is a glass pane. It is kept from falling out with some form of trim from the inside. The trim can go on, and the trim can come off. What doesn't Hughes understand about that? I've yet to hear of anyone noting that object hanging temporarily at the top of that window? It's a dead giveaway that the hoax included this window.

Window installers use special suction cups with handles to hold windows as they install them, or remove them. A pane of that small size can be removed and re-installed very fast and trouble-free once the trim is off.

PP says (19th minute) that a police car put its headlights on right at the time of the flashes, and that this police car was pointed to the glass factory. I take this as a signal from the stage area to the person(s) inside the window. When Peeper first gets to that window, there is seen a distinct reflection off of the window that looks nothing like the flashes, nor does it look like the ongoing, general glare from atmospheric dispersion of light. It can be seen at the 1:10/11 point of my Stewart video. The reflection is gone at 1:16.

This is the downfall of the American nation to deep-state gangsterism. This is not a minor problem. Cowardice. Refraining from announcing the facts for fear of repercussions. If they all took to the facts, there would be no need to fear. If they showed muscle exposing the deep state, it would become the coward. As it is, the deep state gains confidence to bring on more tyranny-facilitating plots. The deep state has learned that if it fabricates evidence for its storyline with many police cameras, no congressman or media boss would dare accuse the event as being staged because it simultaneously accuses all policemen holding the cameras of being frauds. See that? The more fraudulent cameras from police, the easier the deep state succeeds against congress, and those who know the event was staged.

Paramount says that there are odd times when a rifle of the caliber used against Crooks causes ZERO splatter. But, usually, there is splatter / spillage, he will admit, and seeing no splatter on the roof, or spillage at the peak, Paramount yet denies the obvious fact that the shooting storyline is faked. But now that the storyline includes another shot hitting Crooks' rifle at the only place it can shatter and cause broken pieces to fly with his head at the peak, and causing three holes in his face from shrapnel, there is need for blood spillage at and below the peak, and yet Paramount remains willfully blind...to the point of diabolical now. His only alternative is a faked assassination when he comes to grips with the missing blood.

The rifle on roof was shown to the world, and nobody noticed any damage to it.

In the 23rd minute, the FBI is shown on-site to hose off the roof. Why? Why not let the rain do it? Don't want to offend the birds for that long? PP, you have two other options: it's fake blood, or the blood belongs to Yearick. The deep state was already with its hand in the cookie jar when the FBI hosed the roof, showing the great importance of removing the evidence against the deep state that could be discovered in the blood.

The FBI is saying, "I know I'm guilty, but I need to remove this blood so you don't know what I'm guilty of, because it reveals that everyone involved is complicit with a vast hoax." None of the players will criticize or trouble the FBI for saving them in this way. Who then, will punish the FBI? There's nobody that can. But God. Trump is now so deep in partnership with the deep state, so blackmail-able, that he probably won't replace Wray (FBI chief).

Christian Video

Here's an interesting waste of time on evolutionist jokery turned into scholarly dogmatism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKf53lsMYqY

Here's a video channel (I'm not familiar with) that looks good for anyone contemplating country living for self-survival, though not on the cheap. He says youtube is persecuting him, which makes sense where globalists don't want people learning that self-sufficient living is a real option for abandoning futuristic satanism on the rise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwPxbBJGfSE

I continue to be disappointed with online pastors who never mention tribulation survival, let alone the need to prepare for the 666 system, even though we see the rise of sodomites into positions of political power, who definitely wish to persecute us. Even though we see Israel poised to be invaded by furious mobs of Arabs who will unite for the purpose. Even though we see armies of false teachers and "healers" picking up where the oldies left off. Even though we see a number system of purchasing all ready to go. It's just mind-boggling to me how this absolute, irresponsible attitude has taken hold stronger rather than weaker as the decades have gone by.

I once thought the world couldn't get much worse in the 1990s, but since then, instead of pre-tribulationists laying down their arsenal of shallow Biblical arguments for a pre-trib theory, they have ignored emphasis on the "tribulation period" altogether like it's an old topic that has seen its heyday.

There is a risk in teaching country survival for 666 endurance. What if people who read my book decide to move to the country, and the 666 doesn't come in their lifetimes? Do they suffer shame and vanity? And so what I always told people is: don't move to the country because I chose to do so; don't assume the tribulation is in a few years just because I think it could be. make your own decision. And this is how pastors should treat the situation. They should introduce it as an option. Living in the country is not a total waste, and in some ways it's liberating and conducive of appreciating God...a lot more than living in a concrete jungle.

For me, it's been good to learn how to use solar power, and how many solar panels I will need to get me by for the most important electrical needs. I also learned that my soil has root-destroying nematodes, which alerts me to storing more food rather than depending on a large garden. In fact, nobody should depend on a large garden.

Another piece of advice: grow fruit trees. For the small amount of land they take up, they produce plenty of produce. I planted five apple trees last year because it's too cold here to grow other fruit trees. Apple trees can be a gamble in these parts, but I'm gambling. Having more apples than I need can be used for trading with others who want them. Choose fruit trees that will grow too high for moose and deer to reach. I can't wait (sarcasm) to discover what sorts of pests will destroy the apples. Growing a garden without having stores to depend on for help with garden destroyers is risky, and so I advise all to store a small "warehouse" of dried foods before the tribulation arrives. That too is risky if thieves discover it.

Working an electric dehydrator into a solar-power system -- meaning to prepare enough panels to run the hydrator -- is a good idea for drying garden foods that don't keep long, such as spinach and kale. These foods are ready to dry in summer, when the sun is good for making electric power. There are many garden plants with edible leaves, by the way, all of which have nutrients. I throw them dry into soups, though not enough to give an off-taste.

I believe that the 666 system comes when businesses are booming. That is, others besides Christians will not need to worry about the general public going door-to-door stealing foods, as would be the case in an economic collapse. Jesus said people will be buying and selling, building, and carrying on as usual, during the 666 period, which is a very useful piece of information, to urge us not to be discouraged by the prospect of wholesale theft of foods. If you store it in a basement, barn or garage, nobody's going to know.

It's my belief that God will keep the globalist nasties busy with the Revelation plagues so that they will cancel their expenditures / plans seeking to spoil our off-grid survival. Besides, we still don't know whether or not we will be able to buy electricity. It's possible we will because we don't need to enter a building to buy it.

It may turn out that the 666 system is only a door pass for entering stores and places of business, with a virus pandemic as the excuse. If we have money in the bank, it's possible that we can just let the electric / gas / water company take direct payments automatically. If this turns out to be the reality, then people will be able to survive the tribulation even in a city / town / village home, no need to go off-grid. However, what if it doesn't work out that way? For those who can't afford a country property and the preparations it needs, there's some hope there.

I doubt very much that they will prohibit the use of exterior / drive-through bank machines without the mark. So, we might be able to withdraw and deposit money if our bank has an outside machine. We don't yet know whether the world will be cashless by the time the anti-Christ arrives to his role. The anti-Christ is foremost God's tool to demolish Rothschilian Israel, and it is He who determines the time of his arrival. The wicked outside of Israel will be caught up by him and led to their demolition too.

It's not altogether going to be as dastardly and hopeless as pre-tribulationist movies make it out to be. The more frightening pre-tribulationists can make the last 1260 days appear, the more they think Christians will remain pre-tribulationists. Ignore these false teachings. Revelation 12 itself says that God will nourish the Church for 1260 days, and remove satan's chief threat from them. It's not a detailed description of our help, but it's there. And there are two groups of Christians in the text, the "woman" who is nourished, and "the others" who are harmed by the anti-Christ when she gets away from him.

She gets her help specifically in the wilderness, and so we should not depend on city survival. I hope for everyone's sake that water and heat can be obtained with money in cities, but, even if it can, there may be distinct dangers in the city for those who reject the mark, such as theft of their foods, furniture...or worse: from such things as faggots of the murderous likes we see in the story of Lot. The only good news is that few people are queer, but the bad news is that they now have many supporters, many anti-Jesus supporters who could decide to jump into the action of persecuting believers, not because Christians do evil, but because they are portrayed as problematic for their Bible-holding views.

For me, I'm waiting for the anti-Christ to fulfill Daniel 11:21-25, his successful invasion of Egypt. Only then will I finalize my tribulation preparations that cost a lot of money. I'm no longer on solar power, and as we can't store batteries for very long, knowing that the time is approaching in a few years will be instrumental in our purchasing the batteries, and extra panels, and making the system reliable. Rain barrels will wait until I see the invasion of Egypt. Loads of good soil and fertilizers / plant nutrients will wait until I see the invasion of Egypt. A new barn (large garage) for the chickens and sheep will wait until I see the invasion of Egypt. Four year's worth of firewood, an extra water pump, and all sorts of other, vital extras, will wait...you know. You don't want to spend money early on these needs in case you never need them. But I'm planning on a lots of stored, dried foods because they last 20 years, and I can eat them at any time i.e. no waste. I have no problem advising you to dry foods now, bit-by-bit, eat them later. Make it a happy time to peal vegetables and fruits, and chop meats too, to dry them.

I'm placing my confidence in the idea that God permitted us a major sign that alerts to the time being at hand, A FEW YEARS BEFORE the mandatory 666 system. It seems to me that Daniel 11:25 occurs a few years before the invasion of Jerusalem in verse 31. If not for this particular prophecy, I know of no other way to know when we are a few years before the 666. What good would it be if God gave us only a month to prepare for the 666? See what I'm saying? The prophecy of Jesus concerning false teachers and the increase of natural disasters doesn't necessarily tell us when the 666 system is at hand. But how could we miss the invasion of Egypt by a God-despising personality?

The Revelation plagues can't alert us to the time-at-hand if all 21 (or 28) plagues occur after the start of the 1260 days. Revelation gives no clue, I know of, to indicate which of the plagues come before the 1260 days, nor, if some do, how long before those days it occurs.

The problem is, both pre-tribbers and post-tribbers, in large part, reject Daniel 11:21-31 as being an end-time prophecy. But when we see him invading Egypt, we need to ramp up our efforts to warn the churches that it's the fulfillment of that prophecy. I think Christians will be much more open to seeing it that way, when it begins, and that will be the time also for defaming pre-tribulationists like never before as false shepherds, and sticking it to them good, if they dare remain pre-tribbers at that time. I don't take a broad brush in portraying them as false shepherds or false Christians at this time, but if they continue in their error once we are at the brink, turn your mouth against them with full force.

The anti-Christ in Daniel 11:21-24 seems to be a Middle-Eastern ruler without question. At this time, we can gather that he will use Muslims to attack both Egypt and Israel. It'll be impossible to miss him, if we know the prophecy. We have the added clue that he will be tied to Europe's leadership position, but this might not be the case until after he successfully invades Jerusalem at verse 31, which is also when the 1260 days begin. Can we fathom a Europe-supported, pro-Muslim anti-Israeli? How could that come about, do we suppose? Do we not see Britain in favor of Muslims at this time, more than Christianity? Schwabism will likely pit European Muslims against Christianity. Things have been swinging that way, and there was already a vast pro-Hamas following in Europe, 15 years ago, that made itself known in major media. At anytime, these groups could swing into action to fulfill prophecy. (Pre-tribbers are by-and-large pro-Israel.)

I can't fathom a powerful faction in Europe supporting an invasion of Israel-tolerating Egypt unless the mentality is pro-Hamas. I reason that the anti-Christ will excuse his invasion of Egypt by pretending to be the savior of Gaza, and what better time to use that excuse but now that Israel is in the middle of a plan to eliminate Gaza? And it's the right-wing Israeli government that's using this fist against Gaza, precisely the type of government that leftists despise. It's understandable that leftists will hate Israel as much as they hate Christians. We could be on the brink in 2025, or even earlier.

Obama the sodomite is yet a player in American politics. What happens if his circle of leftists start to arm Hezbollah? Have leftists been doing so throughout Biden's reign of gaffs? While he stumbled, Obamaites were secretly shoring up the powers of Middle-East extremists, with the help of sodomite military brass? It makes a lot of sense. We have yet to see what the latest military snake looks like in the Middle East. For many years, that snake has gone quiet. It departed Afghanistan and took a den somewhere else in the Middle East. Where, and what for? It left the Taliban many hard weapons of war during the reign of Biden's sleep-walking. God is preparing a terrible end for the leftists by the very things the leftists are preparing against Him.

Here's a video on surviving without a fridge, though I recommend a solar-power system that powers both a fridge and freezer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHv4x2Maxp8

He says we can eat left-overs a day old. No problem, I've left food out of the fridge until the next day, and it's got no bacteria growth as yet. But these foods can be eaten two and three days later if they are merely re-heated to kill the faint bacteria that has appeared by then. Yes, keeping these foods at 60 degrees instead of 70 is much better. And as bacteria grows only on the tops of foods, store foods in narrow containers rather than wide.

Or, better yet, get a pump that sucks oxygen out of containers to keep bacteria from growing at all for weeks. I'm reading that the botulism bacteria takes a few weeks to form (in an oxygen-free jar), but, even better: "How can botulism be prevented? Only cooking or boiling food destroys botulinum toxin. Freezing does not destroy the toxin." Consider removing only part of the oxygen from jars to lessen bacterial growth and guard against botulism too.

To save heating fuel, make HUGE dinners in HUGE pots that will feed the family for days with ONE cooking. The larger the pot's underside, the more heat it will trap before it rises past the pot's sides. Once heat exits the food at the top, it's wasted, and so a pot 24 inches deep (filled with food) will re-use the rising heat almost four times more than a pot of food six inches deep. Boiling water in a wide pan uses less heat. And you don't need to boil food to kill most bacteria. Keep a food thermometer.

Immediately after cooking in the huge pot for that day's lunch, you can store the "left-overs" in sealed jars to get them to go for months, depending on what you're putting in there. I'm not so sure that botulism is the grave danger that it's portrayed online. If the food smells good after opening the jar, it's probably not got the botulism bacteria. Get your oxygen pumps today, more than one.

You can suck most of the oxygen out of a plastic bag with your mouth, then quickly seal the bag. I do it all the time when storing foods in freezers. You can suck oxygen out of a jar's lid with a small hose, then quickly tape the hole after pulling out the hose. It's better than removing no oxygen at all. Eat contents soon. Just get into the habit of cooking large meals, and storing food in jars for a week. Here's a show on creating vacuums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OCK6zTjl70

The man above says that eggs taken from the hen, if left unwashed, won't spoil out of the fridge. For many days, anyway. He didn't say how long. Just remember that: don't wash eggs direct from the hen.

Important: "To disinfect a rainwater supply so it is safe to drink, use 40 mL consumer grade, NSF approved liquid bleach at 5.25% active strength for every 100 gallons of rain water." That's about one teaspoon per 10 gallons. Now you know how important it is to have bleach, to save heating fuel needed to boil water, if you don't have bleach. Use "Only use regular, unscented chlorine bleach products" without other cleaning agents mixed in. Call the bleach company to make sure if there's nothing on the bottle telling that it's safe for water sterilization.

However, bleach has a short shelf life, unfortunately, and deteriorates gradually with time. My Old Dutch bottle doesn't even have an expiry date. Trusting a bleach a couple of years old that's working partially as well as it does when new gets risky. How partially has it become useless?

A more-expensive solution with a shelf life of up to five years is: "Ef-Chlor Water Purification Treatment (100 Tablets), 67 mg, Portable Drinking Water Treatment Ideal for Emergencies, Survival, Travel, and Camping, Purifies 2.64-5.28 Gallons in 1 Tablet". Currently $14 per 100 tabs = 14 cents per roughly four gallons. That's a huge benefit as opposed to all the gas / wood needed for heating water. In the tribulation, where you're unable to buy gas, we'll be drinking lots of unheated water instead of four coffees daily, with no fruits juices or pops available to us.

Drinking water obtained from an asphalt roof is not recommended. I don't know whether it's acceptably toxic on an ongoing basis. Remove all shingle pebbles from within the rain gutters because each pebble has an asphalt film upon it. So long as the rain contacts the stones, no problem, but it's the tar under the stones that's not good. Once a stone is removed by rain erosion, the tar under it is exposed and washed away too, though not all at once. If you think of how much water a roof puts out per average rain, and how little tar gets washed out, it doesn't seem too risky if you're drinking it sporadically when your well dries out, for example. If it's a choice of no water versus asphalt-roof water, you'll take the water.

There's also a flower-pot method of filtering water, but the one in the video below doesn't tell whether he's filtering dirt only, or bacteria too. The idea is to fill a vase with water, and wait for it to seep through the clay. After watching his first video, I was wondering how the clay doesn't get clogged, since it's the filter, and apparently it does, but only on the outer edge, not within the clay, and so the filtered-out materials can be cleaned away. So he says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btQXh8rRbLk

The cleaner your roof water to begin with, the cleaner it will be after passing the clay vase. Roof water for a 1260-day journey is a must even if you have a nearby stream. It brings bath and toilet water close to your bathroom. Raise the rain barrels (the more the better) a couple off the ground (on blocks) so that you can tap it with a valve that releases water into a food-grade pail / container beneath the barrel. Clean the bottom of the barrel annually. Things in water either sink or float, with nice clean water in-between even if it starts out very muddy (like from a stream).

What if your water pumps go bust? You'll be glad you have the rain barrels as back-up. Use them to store foods until needed for water, and hope you never need them for water. If you'll be growing a garden, roof water can salvage plants if you have a deep well, for the latter don't usually have high water volumes sufficient for large gardens during long, rainless periods. A few barrels of rain water could get your plants to survive until the next big rain. Even if the plants are not going to die, the extra water gets extra growth and health.

Sorry, but squirrels and mice can chew through plastic rain barrels. If you use plastic, you really need to cover them with metal screening. You may opt for metal barrels, no worries about the rust in the water if water's being used constantly.

Salt gives you strength. Figure on more than a teaspoon daily per person.

Always read comments at self-survival videos. Here's another, this time on a possible danger of adding wood matter INTO the soil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbnoe1q8X9w

The lady above has a follow-up three years later, and the man she features says he grows his total vegetable needs on a half acre (150' x 150') only:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBZgX2Yw9Qw

I don't have any news this week. I don't like covering Biden, Harris or Trump news unless necessary. It's useless clutter for the brain. Already, as usual, the media are reporting a tight race for the big election, because this ropes viewers. The election cheaters always assure a tight race for the White House by making the fringe party, the Democrats, contenders with a dozen different methods of cheating.