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 bee…
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.
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.