So, you do seem to accept the democratic media narrative. That is OK, except two people died and more were seriously injured by real bullets. I suppose that they were crisis actors (a la Alex Jones) or else they were sacrificed for a psyop (which might be plausible, but that is a genuinely risky maneuver that could result in civil war, d…
So, you do seem to accept the democratic media narrative. That is OK, except two people died and more were seriously injured by real bullets. I suppose that they were crisis actors (a la Alex Jones) or else they were sacrificed for a psyop (which might be plausible, but that is a genuinely risky maneuver that could result in civil war, death penalties (officially administered or not) for the perpetrators, etc. The ear might be a highly vascular piece of the anatomy, but we do not know how large the wound was, and the volume of the spewing blood would depend directly on that. I have spent some time reading and analyzing the JFK assassination, and I am open to a wide variety of conspiracy talk, and I have more trust in Mathew Crawford than in nearly anyone else on many topics in recent history. Some of the writing is conceptually difficult to follow, which is fine, but I am not quite ready to accept a seriously risky fake shooting in Butler, PA when there was obviously also a real shooting with multiple victims at the same time. I will think about it some more, but I am not convinced at all at the moment due to (my perception of) a lack of sufficient evidence.
"Most terrorist events and wars are designed by the social engineers and involve real deaths. That's how they sell it." This is the hump almost no one can successfully climb over. The sale is fake, the deaths can be very real. Ukraine is a staggering example of this. Fake pours out of that country constantly, yet real people do get snatched off their streets, put in holes in the ground and get ground into hamburger.
People either buy the whole package, or they notice the fake and assume nothing is real.
Mathew is correct in pointing out that mainstream Democrats did not question whether an (unsuccessful) assassination took place (I tried to find examples, and only came up with the mayor of Aberdeen, a political advisor to a Democrat billionaire mega-donor, an actress, and a bunch of social media "influencers," many of which may have been fake profiles. I apparently mixed up the idea of a narrative with the laments of many Democrats that it did not succeed. The actual media narrative is that there was a genuine assassination (an attempt does not have to be successful to be called that). The event is suspicious in various ways, as Mathew points out, and other points that he made are valid as well. I still do not feel comfortable with the conclusion that it was staged, because I admit the possibility but do not think that it is adequately explained or demonstrated. The fact that Mathew favors that possibility definitely has some weight for me, but I am not convinced (yet).
Peter Yim has published a number of substack articles, any one of which makes a strong case for the assassination attempt having been staged. Taken together the case is extremely strong. This article, https://peteryim.substack.com/p/the-magic-bullet, presents evidence that the photograph of the bullet in flight was faked. In itself, that’s practically a slam dunk for the claim that it was staged. You can poke around on his stack for additional evidence.
Go to a rifle range, aim at the target, try to do well. Then go back and watch the videos from that day. You will know it is fake immediately.
Interestingly, when I show the video in question to women and ask them if they see something odd they get it almost immediately. Men, especially "hunters", usually don't see it. Our biases own us.
I have fired a rifle. I have never practiced at all. The late Mr. Crooks practiced regularly. My own experience tells me nothing, and I do not understand what you are saying. You need to explain in words exactly what you mean, because talking about "seeing" is completely inadequate in conveying your meaning. Comparing women with "hunters" gives me no additional information. I do not know whether I am biased in this matter, unless inexperience is a bias, and you have implied that it may be helpful. I am not being critical of your ideas; I simply do not know what you are trying to say.
Thomas I keep this one bit of info to myself as a test tool. Sorry for being vague but the best I can do is offer the suggestion above to engage in the real world of this question if you want the answer.
Men often claim competency with firearms, few women do.
The problem is not subtle. It is glaringly obvious. Take another look. If you are genuinely interested, send me a message.
There are two narratives here. There always are. If the story is big, each narrative has minor alternating story lines.
The trap you are falling for here is that you "know" things. You only know what your mental model primed you to know. The world you live in, as Musk points out, is a simulation. He tries to sell that as something cool and maybe spooky. The simulation is what you are told. You (we) then create the reality on the ground.
Heroes are created to do evil. The bigger the hero, the bigger the evil that is on the way.
I was not in the US at that time but experienced butler pennsylvania through first many videos and later on through conversations with my family mostly.
Later I saw a youtube video of supposedly some prophesy of this happening, that really got me thinking.
Even though I believe politics is mostly theater, it is true that its hard to imagine an event that would elicit as much emotion in me (disgruntled "wants to love America" ex-patriot) as that one.
In the end, I didn't vote, instead attending the COP16 biodiversity summit.
Trump is never given credit for being a talented actor but he is one. In the months before the election he gave a masterclass in body language and verbal language mismatch. This activated the mental models of people completely differently from the exact same sentence!
He said the words "I am not a Christian" and used the body language of "I am a Christian". This may seem easy to do but it requires a huge amount of training and talent.
At best (or worst), what Trump did in this clip is to enunciate the second word in that statement in such a way that it could be "a" and it could be "not". If it was "a", it was said in a New-York way that is typical of him. He did not clearly say that he's not Christian. It's also notable that if he had, he chose to say "I'm not Christian" rather than "I'm not a Christian", the latter of which would have left no room for doubt. I'm quite open to the idea that this is a little psy-op using ambiguity. It's either that, or he said "I'm a Christian".
So, you do seem to accept the democratic media narrative. That is OK, except two people died and more were seriously injured by real bullets. I suppose that they were crisis actors (a la Alex Jones) or else they were sacrificed for a psyop (which might be plausible, but that is a genuinely risky maneuver that could result in civil war, death penalties (officially administered or not) for the perpetrators, etc. The ear might be a highly vascular piece of the anatomy, but we do not know how large the wound was, and the volume of the spewing blood would depend directly on that. I have spent some time reading and analyzing the JFK assassination, and I am open to a wide variety of conspiracy talk, and I have more trust in Mathew Crawford than in nearly anyone else on many topics in recent history. Some of the writing is conceptually difficult to follow, which is fine, but I am not quite ready to accept a seriously risky fake shooting in Butler, PA when there was obviously also a real shooting with multiple victims at the same time. I will think about it some more, but I am not convinced at all at the moment due to (my perception of) a lack of sufficient evidence.
Show me the mainstream Democrats who question whether an assassination took place.
This is not about accepting a narrative. I did not get there by anyone else's suggestion.
Part of my point is that the mainstream media was suspiciously present to capture the details that create the image.
Most terrorist events and wars are designed by the social engineers and involve real deaths. That's how they sell it.
"Most terrorist events and wars are designed by the social engineers and involve real deaths. That's how they sell it." This is the hump almost no one can successfully climb over. The sale is fake, the deaths can be very real. Ukraine is a staggering example of this. Fake pours out of that country constantly, yet real people do get snatched off their streets, put in holes in the ground and get ground into hamburger.
People either buy the whole package, or they notice the fake and assume nothing is real.
Mathew is correct in pointing out that mainstream Democrats did not question whether an (unsuccessful) assassination took place (I tried to find examples, and only came up with the mayor of Aberdeen, a political advisor to a Democrat billionaire mega-donor, an actress, and a bunch of social media "influencers," many of which may have been fake profiles. I apparently mixed up the idea of a narrative with the laments of many Democrats that it did not succeed. The actual media narrative is that there was a genuine assassination (an attempt does not have to be successful to be called that). The event is suspicious in various ways, as Mathew points out, and other points that he made are valid as well. I still do not feel comfortable with the conclusion that it was staged, because I admit the possibility but do not think that it is adequately explained or demonstrated. The fact that Mathew favors that possibility definitely has some weight for me, but I am not convinced (yet).
I appreciate that you stepped away to do that research. That motivation is the key to moving forward, no matter what the situation.
Peter Yim has published a number of substack articles, any one of which makes a strong case for the assassination attempt having been staged. Taken together the case is extremely strong. This article, https://peteryim.substack.com/p/the-magic-bullet, presents evidence that the photograph of the bullet in flight was faked. In itself, that’s practically a slam dunk for the claim that it was staged. You can poke around on his stack for additional evidence.
Go to a rifle range, aim at the target, try to do well. Then go back and watch the videos from that day. You will know it is fake immediately.
Interestingly, when I show the video in question to women and ask them if they see something odd they get it almost immediately. Men, especially "hunters", usually don't see it. Our biases own us.
I have fired a rifle. I have never practiced at all. The late Mr. Crooks practiced regularly. My own experience tells me nothing, and I do not understand what you are saying. You need to explain in words exactly what you mean, because talking about "seeing" is completely inadequate in conveying your meaning. Comparing women with "hunters" gives me no additional information. I do not know whether I am biased in this matter, unless inexperience is a bias, and you have implied that it may be helpful. I am not being critical of your ideas; I simply do not know what you are trying to say.
Thomas I keep this one bit of info to myself as a test tool. Sorry for being vague but the best I can do is offer the suggestion above to engage in the real world of this question if you want the answer.
Men often claim competency with firearms, few women do.
The problem is not subtle. It is glaringly obvious. Take another look. If you are genuinely interested, send me a message.
There are two narratives here. There always are. If the story is big, each narrative has minor alternating story lines.
The trap you are falling for here is that you "know" things. You only know what your mental model primed you to know. The world you live in, as Musk points out, is a simulation. He tries to sell that as something cool and maybe spooky. The simulation is what you are told. You (we) then create the reality on the ground.
Heroes are created to do evil. The bigger the hero, the bigger the evil that is on the way.
There is explanatory power here, please flesh this out more.
I am most fascinated about how we communicate with each other about what we don't know, and on the minor points we disagree on.
I wrote a brief summary: https://substack.com/home/post/p-150963817?source=queue
I think the link should work let me know if there is an issue.
I was not in the US at that time but experienced butler pennsylvania through first many videos and later on through conversations with my family mostly.
Later I saw a youtube video of supposedly some prophesy of this happening, that really got me thinking.
Even though I believe politics is mostly theater, it is true that its hard to imagine an event that would elicit as much emotion in me (disgruntled "wants to love America" ex-patriot) as that one.
In the end, I didn't vote, instead attending the COP16 biodiversity summit.
Trump is never given credit for being a talented actor but he is one. In the months before the election he gave a masterclass in body language and verbal language mismatch. This activated the mental models of people completely differently from the exact same sentence!
He said the words "I am not a Christian" and used the body language of "I am a Christian". This may seem easy to do but it requires a huge amount of training and talent.
Great observation.
Wow. For reference/study:
https://x.com/darreldrowland/status/1817177872215216206
At best (or worst), what Trump did in this clip is to enunciate the second word in that statement in such a way that it could be "a" and it could be "not". If it was "a", it was said in a New-York way that is typical of him. He did not clearly say that he's not Christian. It's also notable that if he had, he chose to say "I'm not Christian" rather than "I'm not a Christian", the latter of which would have left no room for doubt. I'm quite open to the idea that this is a little psy-op using ambiguity. It's either that, or he said "I'm a Christian".
He is not a Christian. People heard what they wanted to.
I don't think he's a Christian, but I was commenting on the word he used.