All Episodes
July 21, 2024 - Dark Horse - Weinstein & Heying
02:46:04
How Many Shooters? John Cullen on the Trump Assassination Attempt

Find John Cullen on X: https://x.com/I_Am_JohnCullenFind John Cullen on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@iamjohncullenFind Chris Martenson’s audio analysis (mentioned by John): https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1814114895065141491*****PaleoValley: Wide array of amazing products, including SuperFood Golden Milk and beef sticks. Go to https://paleovalley.com/darkhorse for 15% off your first order.*****Join DarkHorse on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live ch...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I have the distinct pleasure of sitting this morning with John Cullen.
John Cullen, who came to my attention for his incredibly high quality work unpacking the fiction and reality surrounding the massacre in Las Vegas.
John Cullen, picked up his skill set working at Oracle in the 80s.
I will let him tell you a little bit about that background and how it is relevant to the various topics we want to discuss today.
But in the meantime, John, welcome to Dark Horse.
Thank you very much.
It's a pleasure to be here.
All right, so tell me a little bit about what you did at Oracle, as it will be central to looking at the would-be assassination of President Trump.
Sure.
So early in my career, I was at Oracle.
I was a young guy in my late 20s.
And we're talking 1988.
late 20s and we're talking 1988.
So at that time, Oracle was about 1,500 employees, about $200 million in revenue.
So we were considered a startup.
And in fact, the company that I left to go work at Oracle was bigger than Oracle.
So for me, going to Oracle was a risk.
I was going to a smaller company.
So I went to work at Oracle and one of the projects I was working on early on was a company in Redlands, California called ESRI.
An ESRI wanted to do something.
They wanted to marry mapping technology with data.
And so I went out to Redlands, California.
So our offices were in El Segundo, California, right next to Hughes, Hughes Aircraft.
And I drive out to Redlands to meet with Jack Dangerman and Scott Morehouse.
Scott Morehouse is like their head, you know, technician guy, CTO.
And Jack Dangerman's the founder of the company.
And they had a team of guys there.
And it probably took the, you know, the Oracle team, there was me, two other people.
It took us probably an hour and a half to fully understand what these guys were trying to do.
It was so groundbreaking.
It was so revolutionary.
You know, and this is 30, 35 years ago.
So I understand something of it, because as a biologist, I never did GIS work, but I certainly worked with people who did.
So do you want to describe what that means, compiling data with maps?
Well, the easiest way to understand it is if you have a GPS in your car and your GPS will tell you where an ATM is.
How does the map know where the ATM is, right?
How does the map know where there's a Circle K?
How does it know that?
Because the Circle K has an address.
And these guys figured out how to turn location data into whether it's raster vector and I forget exactly what the graphic aspect of it is.
But this is the technology that they use when you go to town hall to find out what are the boundaries of your property.
It's all in this system, right?
So that's how that stuff works.
So that's GIS.
But the simplest thing is your GPS and how the GPS knows where things are.
And that's the basis of it.
And so the tagline is the science of where.
Alright, The Science of Where.
So you've been working on the technical aspects of modern cartography, if that's a fair description.
And I will just say, I don't...
I don't think we're going to dwell too long on the issues of Las Vegas but what I saw with your work on the Las Vegas shooting was that an event that I had initially paid a lot of attention to and then couldn't make heads or tails of and walked away and didn't look back at it for many years You spotted anomalies and you brought your arsenal of tools to bear on that question.
And when I looked at your analysis of the event, what it implied about the physics of the event, what Physically took place and then moved from there to what could possibly explain What ends up being a helicopter based?
Hypothesis for how the attack actually unfolded I was shocked at how compelling the narrative part of it ended up being as well I really thought I can't say for sure that you've got the details correct, but I can say Proof of concept, you demonstrated that an entirely different story than the one we've all been told could explain all of the things that we saw and many things that you were able to find that most of us hadn't seen.
So anyway, I thought it was excellent quality work.
I then tracked you to where you started working on questions of the COVID so-called pandemic and you end up in a place that I find nobody else I will briefly summarize it.
You tell me what I've got wrong.
Your position, and this probably deserves an entirely different podcast, but your position is that COVID exists, which I agree with you on, that it was circulating, but that it does not explain the sum total of pathogenic effects that we saw and what does explain those pathogenic effects according to
Your analysis is the circulation of H7N9 flu, which I think this is a very provocative and very interesting hypothesis that, for example, That would explain why many of us experienced novel pathogenic symptoms during the COVID crisis and didn't test positive for COVID, even when it seemed like we were in, you know, at peak sickness.
We still couldn't trigger these tests, even those of us who know how to run a scientific test and should have been able to accomplish it.
So, in any case, that analysis, I have to say, I'm not as convinced as the Las Vegas analysis, but I certainly think it is worth considering.
Did I describe it correctly?
Perfectly.
Exactly right.
I would love to share with you the findings.
I think Heather would enjoy it as well, and show you guys why do I think this?
In other words, it's not just a thought, right?
The way I work is I use inductive reasoning in all of these scenarios.
So this is Sir Francis Bacon, right?
And the assumption here is we are not going to have all of the evidence on the table.
So I'm not going to be able to do deductive reasoning.
I'm not going to be able to say it was the butler in the pantry with the candlestick holder, definitively.
Because they're hiding evidence.
They're covering it up.
And guess who's covering it up?
The FBI and the CIA and, you know, Spook Central.
So when those guys are covering it up and they've got black budget money and they've got, you know, whether or not you believe in Mockingbird or not, I mean, I can show you super cuts that will, you know, chill you to the bone when you see how these messages just get in sync overnight.
Mockingbird is a fact.
You know, we don't know what happened to it after it was supposedly disbanded.
It's a little hard to imagine that it vanished.
I think you see the results.
You see, they have the ability, you know, they, in air quotes, they have the ability to change the narrative overnight.
We saw this March 10th to March 11th, 2020.
Everybody was like, eh, COVID, don't worry about it.
And then overnight, March 11th, everything changed.
So, I'd love to share those findings with you and explain why it appears that was the case.
Why do I think that SARS-CoV-2 is real, but was actually a red herring to cover up a much more deadly pathogen, actually.
Much, much more dangerous.
I think it is a fascinating story and I don't know that we will have time to get there today but I would like to circle back to it because it let's put it this way I think we are caught between phony narratives one of them being that SARS-CoV-2 is the sum total of what we experienced which doesn't Explained very much.
And the other is that SARS-CoV-2 was a non-fact that whatever leaked out of the Wuhan Institute just simply went to extinction and that, you know, cycle thresholds and background coronaviruses explain everything.
And what I can say as somebody who circulated in this milieu is that there was definitely something uniquely pathogenic circulating and you know I had illnesses in seasons that one does not typically get illnesses they were significant illnesses they did seem to respond to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine so what I get is there was something
It was a pathogen, presumably a virus.
It had impacts on the body.
Doctors were not, you know, fooling themselves into believing that they had sick patients.
There was something real, but as for what it was, I'm agnostic as to what it was.
How would I know other than the fact that most of the time I was sick, I didn't test positive for COVID.
So, I'll give you guys a fair warning before we get into the conversation.
So, I have Asperger's, and so I'm on the spectrum, the autism spectrum.
I got two of my three daughters are also on the spectrum.
My eldest has Asperger's, my youngest is full-blown speech apraxia autism, okay?
So, it's in the family.
I look at it as a secret weapon, all right?
So, I look at my Asperger's as a tool.
And I used that tool in the last six days on this, just like I did on Vegas.
I have the ability to focus and play my game.
And I only look up to see what Tiger Woods and Bryce and Shambo, whatever these guys' names are.
I look up every now and then, I take a peek, and I'm back at my game.
And I'm back at my game.
That's what I did with Vegas.
That's what I'm doing here.
And the community has pulled together evidence that is stunning.
Same thing happened with COVID.
The unique thing with the COVID story was that as the guy from Oracle who built the mapping system, maybe we can get Zach in the control room to pill up an image of this, When I saw that Johns Hopkins was using the ESRI system to map COVID?
Do you remember your first car?
Were you 17, 18, 19?
What was your first car?
16.
It was a Subaru.
And what was your first car?
16.
It was a Subaru.
And what was your first?
Okay.
Brand new or a piece of junk?
I was a lucky kid.
It was a new car.
You got a brand new car.
All right.
Yeah.
If you were to run into that Subaru today with 341,000 miles on it, would you recognize it?
I think I could figure it out pretty quick.
Right?
Yeah.
And if you put an engine kill switch underneath the dash, And it's still there.
That's what it felt like to me.
I'm sitting there, I'm like, you're using the map?
Okay everybody, clear the room, we got this.
Yeah.
Brett, in 10 seconds I clicked on Hong Kong.
Because I never heard of Wuhan.
I have a 10-year visa to China.
I've been to Zhengzhou.
I went to the Shaolin Temple.
I studied martial arts for 50 years.
And I never heard of Wuhan.
I'm humble enough.
This is why I warned you about the Asperger's.
Part of Asperger's is...
I don't care if I'm wrong or they're going to throw me out of the club.
I'm not in a club.
They're not going to throw me out.
I'm not worried about being wrong.
I was wrong about COVID Brett for three and a half years.
For three and a half years, I was that close.
I kept telling everybody it was 1918 Spanish flu.
And Donald Trump kept saying that's 1917 Spanish flu.
So I was off by a year, but I was wrong.
Wrong is wrong.
Now, was it close enough for hand grenades and horseshoes?
Because Zofluza treats both.
Okay, so that was, sometimes confirmation bias is, you know, we're close enough that it's okay.
Sometimes we have false positives.
But I was wrong for three and a half years.
I dropped that like a hot potato.
The second I saw this H7N9 evidence, there was a moment in the movie, what was it, The Big Lebowski, where the dude says, This new information has come to light, man.
New information has come to light, right?
I look at every investigation that way, in that how am I going to make any kind of definitive pound-my-fist-on-the-table thing if new information keeps coming to light constantly?
It hasn't stopped.
In any of these investigations, so the H7 and 9 stuff, we're still getting stuff today.
The Vegas thing, I think I got pretty well sewn up.
And the issue here, we go back to inductive reasoning.
Sir Francis Bacon.
In inductive reasoning, it's almost like the formula where you keep going half the distance to the wall, you never make it to the wall.
Same thing with inductive reasoning.
We are never going to have a 100% definitive, here's what it is.
All right.
I want to wrap to that.
So when you, when I propose something like a thesis using inductive reasoning for the Vegas shooting as a straw man, let's just use that.
And I put forward, this is a helicopter attack by Saudi Arabia National Guard commandos.
And I put that forward.
Someone else now needs to present an equally well-researched and documented thesis.
That's okay.
So, for example, if you guys were like, no, no, no, no, no, I think it's El Chapo because El Chapo's daughter was sleeping with Jim Murren, the CEO.
Dude, now you got a story.
Now we have an alternate thesis.
But nobody has come forward in seven years with an alternative thesis that can hold a cup of water, let alone the 250 videos that I've published on the Las Vegas shooting on my YouTube channel.
So there's 250 videos there that lay this stuff out.
No one else has presented a body of evidence that comes close.
And in inductive reasoning, that means I'm kind of the king of the hill until somebody else comes along with a better researched or, you know, similarly researched, more cogent thesis.
This episode is sponsored by Paleo Valley.
Paleo Valley makes a huge range of products from supplements like fish roe, organ complex, grass-fed bone broth, protein, and superfood bars.
Everything we've tried from them has been terrific.
I've spoken before about their beef sticks, which are 100% grass-fed and finished, organic and naturally fermented.
But today I'm going to talk about their superfood golden milk.
Golden milk, also known as turmeric milk, is a delicious, nutritious hot drink rich in turmeric, usually made on a base of either milk or coconut milk.
Turmeric is a flowering plant in the ginger family, and grows across much of tropical Asia.
Just as with ginger, the rhizome of turmeric has been used culinarily and medicinally across cultures for a very long time.
Modern research backs up ancient wisdom, and we now know that turmeric is an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory, among many other beneficial mechanisms of action.
A particularly delicious way to get turmeric in your diet is through golden milk.
Enter Paleo Valley's Superfood Golden Milk.
Paleo Valley's delicious product has turmeric, of course, and also ginger, cinnamon, black pepper, coconut milk powder, a little bit of monk fruit to add sweetness, and several species of mushrooms, lion's mane, reishi, shiitake, and cordyceps.
It's gluten-free, grain-free, soy-free, non-GMO.
And it's delicious.
Helio Valley doesn't cut corners.
They source only the highest quality ingredients, and they use the whole ingredient, unlike many of their competitors' products.
Their Superfood Golden Milk has whole turmeric, not just curcumin, a component of turmeric, and whole certified organic mushrooms, not just the mycelium.
Golden milk is understood to help reduce inflammation, enhance cognitive function, support immune function, improve digestion, and increase endurance.
Paleo Valley is passionate not only about human health, but environmental restoration and animal welfare as well.
And they're a family-owned company.
Try Paleo Valley's superfood golden milk today.
You'll be so glad you did.
Head over to PaleoValley.com slash Dark Horse for 15% off your first order.
Alright, I think this is exactly where you are.
So, as you know, I'm an evolutionary biologist.
In evolution, we never have all the data.
We couldn't possibly.
For one thing, history erases it, right?
The amount of time that has passed since two creatures that I care about were, you know, connected on the tree of life means that much of what I'd like to be able to just check, I can't.
So, we're used to dealing with incomplete evidence and still managing to think carefully about it.
So, I resonate with you there and I would agree with you.
On the Las Vegas shooting, what you've got is the hypothesis which explains the most while assuming the least.
It's not a slam dunk that it's right but the fact that there's no competitor that can do what your version of events does means that's the leading hypothesis until somebody comes up with a better one and I agree with you I ain't heard it so anyway that's that's all very good now you and I are quite different in our relationship to being wrong
You describe and I'm frankly this is the first time I've heard you say you have Asperger's and that fills in some details for me about the weird way in which you're motivated.
I'm very interested.
So Dr. Dave Colum said you've got a you've got a sick personality.
That's okay, dude.
You know, Stephen Wright, one of my favorite comedians, one of his jokes is he goes to the bar and the lady next to him says, you're wearing two different color socks.
And he looks back at her and he goes, yeah, because I go by thickness.
I go by the weave.
I don't care what color my socks are.
As long as it's the same weave, I'm good to go.
I'm a different kind of cat.
I was a different kind of kid.
I really appreciate this because I'm pretty sure you will take this in stride but you come across very unusually and in fact there's some things you do that throw me, right?
The music that you often put behind the videos in which you reveal some important evidence, what I consider to be honest-to-goodness evidence, I find the music troubling because it's very compelling and I don't want to be compelled by the music I want to be compelled by the evidence.
And so anyway, I think you are a highly unusual creature and it is a superpower and If I have a superpower it comes from somewhere different.
I do care about being wrong.
The reason that I embrace having been wrong and I just go and correct it is that it means I sort of reduce the amount of volume under the curve of wrongness because I don't like being wrong.
But I do like, I have a perverse relationship with the experience of being right when nobody else is.
Most people Absolutely cannot stand that.
In fact, they will change their position so they are not alone.
And I actually know that That's actually a good thing.
When you're right about something that literally nobody else is right about, that's a big insight.
We share that.
And I think we recognize that in each other.
And I think that that's why we're drawn to each other.
I mean, I love you guys, been watching your show through COVID.
So I'm a huge fan.
And I think that's what we appreciate about each other.
The fact that I come from a marketing background where we were doing marketing and sales, And I'm trying to get people's attention.
I'm appealing to something that Elon Musk talked about a long time ago, which is the content on Twitter that generates the most You know, wow factor versus the Google look, the original or Drudge Report.
Let's use Drudge Report.
Drudge Report is as basic as we get.
It looks like text on a page, right?
That's not supposed to get your endorphins falling.
I am trying to get endorphins moving.
I am doing this on purpose.
I came from a marketing background.
I make no—you know, my stuff needs to be better than everybody else's, and I do this for a living.
I'm not an evolutionary biologist.
This is what I do.
I investigate shootings.
I investigate cover-ups.
Now, I didn't before.
But because I do this for a living, there's a certain aspect of this that needs to be engaging.
And it's going to turn some people off.
And it tends to turn off people that have an engineering-type mind.
So people that come from engineering-type backgrounds, or chemistry, biology, hard science backgrounds, get like, what the hell is he putting music to?
This is a serious matter.
I get it.
I get it.
But if it's all silent, Yeah, I'm not faulting you.
I get it and I do find it compelling.
That's kind of what is troubling to me about it is that, you know, I look at one of your, you know, your bullet trajectory videos and I hear that music and it's like I feel like I'm involved in looking at a, you know, a thriller and my feeling is I really, I have to then work to control my desire to find this crazy story because I want to know if the story isn't crazy, I want to know that too, right?
In fact, that's very important.
If the story is straightforward, I don't want to be compelled that it's nefarious.
But I think it is time, John, that we take a look at this would-be assassination of President Trump.
Bring your toolkit to bear.
I will say I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, looking at the evidence.
I did not do what you did, which is, you know, reach for the protractor and start Measuring bullet angles and looking at the Google Earth evidence of where the various elevated locations are.
So anyway, I'm very grateful that you did it.
Let's look into it and see what kind of a crazy story this is, because I believe it is a crazy story at many different levels, which doesn't tell us what the true story is, but it tells us there's something there to be found.
Sounds like a plan.
So I'm going to share content from my machine that we'll both be able to view and the audience will be able to see this.
And I've got a couple video clips that I've been accumulating over the course of the last couple days.
As we're recording this show, we're less than a week from the event.
So everything that you folks are going to see has been assembled in less than a week.
All right?
So that's kind of, you know, something.
I haven't seen any FBI briefings.
I didn't see Christopher Wray come to the podium.
I haven't seen anybody come forward and say, here's the investigator, here's what we're doing, here's who we're talking to.
I haven't seen any of that, so forgive me.
I was going to ask you about this, because my impression is...
One of the strangest things about this obviously historical event is that the press conferences that you would have expected in which they gave us paints, you know, how many shell casings were found on the roof with the assassin.
What was the type of ammunition?
Was it 223?
Was it, you know, full metal jacket?
Were these hollow points?
You know, what exactly was the weapon?
These things are essential pieces of information.
Some of them are perfectly straightforward, and yet we don't know anything about it.
And my impression is that in any previous scenario, We would we would have become bored with the briefings in which we only got one or two new pieces of information that weren't that interesting.
But there's something very unsettling about the fact that.
I don't even know what, I don't know how many shell casings there were.
That seems like an essential and very straightforward piece of information.
Why don't I know?
Exactly.
And after the Las Vegas shooting, they were doing briefings every day.
The first two or three days, I think they did two a day.
They did a morning briefing and a five o'clock briefing.
Monday and Tuesday.
Then, Laurel Loomer got under his skin and he stopped doing that.
So, they were doing daily briefings.
And we're not getting anything.
Where is Christopher Wray?
Where is the Pittsburgh FBI office with their daily updates on here's where we are?
We're not getting that.
So that's what I do.
That's why I named the channel on YouTube the John E. Hoover Channel.
That's actually J. Edgar Hoover's real name if he wasn't so pretentious.
So the unpretentious version is John Edgar Hoover.
John E. Hoover.
And that's what I named my channel.
I'm kind of the anti-FBI or the FBI in an alternate universe where they would share what they're doing.
That's what I do.
So, in this investigation, let me kind of walk you through where I began because I like to start at the beginning and I like to show people sort of the development of the thesis.
In other words, if I just jump to the end and tell you it's Saudi commandos and helicopters, you're like, what?
How the hell do you get to that from Steve, for a 64 year old guy shooting from a window, you've got to build the case.
You've got to show people how do you get to this.
So I'm going to show you guys a couple of things that I put together literally in the last six days, five or six days, that kind of builds the case for more than one shooter.
And that's where we're going.
So the bottom line up front is there is ballistic and photographic evidence of more than one shooter.
All right, that's what I'm going to be showing you.
So that's the bottom line up front.
Now, how do I make that case?
How do I make the case?
How do I come to a hypothesis that there's more than one shooter?
I accumulate evidence.
So let me show you guys some evidence to build that case.
So the first thing I'm going to show you is a quick interview that a reporter from Fox did with somebody on the scene.
So let me see how I share this.
We're going to click with share my screen or presentation.
Alright, so this is an interview.
The lady in the red dress is with Fox.
The woman in the black Trump shirt that says Trump Girl is about to recount her personal situation here.
So this is an eyewitness account.
Let's take a listen. - At the fence where the other shooter was, there was one I heard in Water Tower, there was one by the fence. - And still obviously initial reports, but what we do know according to the-- - At the fence where the other shooter was, That's what I heard, right?
in water tower, there was one by the fence.
And still obviously in the reports, but we're the fence where the other shooter was.
There was one I heard in water tower, there was one by the fence.
OK, so one by the water tower, one by the fence.
That's what I heard, right?
Now-- All right, let me jump in here for a second.
I believe I know where you're going.
And I will just say, from my perspective, this is another place where the absence of briefings is glaring.
There's a water tower.
It's the highest position within shooting range of where President Trump was speaking.
There are certain facts about it that we could absolutely be told.
Was the water tower covered?
If it was not covered, why not?
If it was covered, in what way was it covered?
Right?
Those are basic facts of what took place.
These are already matters of history, and there is no reason to hide them from us.
And if the answer is, there was nobody on that water tower and it was not being monitored, that raises an obvious question.
Why not?
So anyway, interesting that you have a witness here saying Watertower.
Right.
So to me, when I see women in their 50s, 60s, 70s recounting something that just happened, it's hard for me to think that she's lying.
Right?
I'm not going to say, well, you know, she's making up a story.
She's, you know, I, why would I think that now here's another eyewitness and we're going to go from this eyewitness into, uh, you know, some more specific stuff, but I want to share with you these eyewitness accounts cause me.
So this kind of kicks in conscious confirmation bias.
Okay, what do I mean by that?
When I hear two people, three people, say that there's a shooter in the water tower, what am I going to go do look?
What am I looking for?
Right.
I'm going to go look at the water tower.
That's confirmation.
I'm looking at the water tower now.
That's confirmation.
That's okay.
Yeah, I don't think it is confirmation bias.
I think, you know, when you have low quality evidence to begin with, and then you start to get a signal, a bunch of people think there was somebody in the water tower.
Could well be that there's a perfectly innocent explanation for that.
There could be a wall that reflects back sound that makes people who were standing in a particular place hear the shot as if it came from the water tower, and it didn't.
In which case, I would expect something like Well, there was no shooter in the water tower because Agent Davis was on the water tower and he reports blah blah blah, right?
In which case, oh, well, what did Agent Davis see?
Could he see the shooter?
Could he see, you know, it was an obvious set of evidence.
And yet what we've got is, I dare you to say water tower, and we're not going to tell you what we thought about the water tower.
So anyway, you want to play your second eyewitness?
Now this is the second eyewitness.
Then we're going to go into more of the ballistic evidence, but the eyewitnesses tend to point me in a certain direction.
So if I had three eyewitnesses telling me the shots were coming from the ladies room, I'd be looking for footage.
Show me some footage.
It's got the ladies room in the footage, right?
That's what I want to see.
I want to see what's going on there.
So when I hear somebody say, uh, one shooter was over by the fence and the other was by the water tower.
Oh, okay.
You got my attention.
Let's listen to this next eyewitness and see what she has to say.
A sharpshooter shot to the left.
He killed the gentleman in the water tower here.
What was that?
The sharpshooter shot to the left.
He killed the gentleman in the water tower here.
Whoa!
That's getting pretty specific.
The sharpshooter shot to the left and killed the guy in the water tower?
Wow!
That's pretty specific.
Doesn't... I mean... And it's not... She doesn't sound like somebody told her this second hand, does it?
Let's listen again.
Harpshooter shot to the left.
He killed the gentleman in the water tower here.
A corpse shooter shot to the left.
He killed a gentleman in the water tower here.
She may be mistaken.
Okay, so none of this to me is definitive.
The whole point of using inductive reasoning, the whole Sir Francis Bacon method, keep gathering evidence.
Keep gathering evidence.
Hold off on coming to a conclusion until the evidence is so overwhelming Again, it's like Galileo, man.
Galileo had the whole notebook.
And he's like, just look through the telescope, bro.
It's all here.
Well, there's a signature of it, if I can borrow from my own toolkit.
If you are trying to figure out what the branching pattern, the evolutionary branching pattern is between a particular set of creatures, and you have not very much evidence, right?
You have scant evidence.
Well, the branching pattern, if you ask a computer to say, well, what's the simplest branching pattern between these 12 creatures?
It keeps flipping back and forth.
When you start adding more and more evidence, it stabilizes.
Because each new piece of evidence is very likely to tell you the same story that you've already heard, which is the true story.
So you get this experience of like, well, a dozen things are possible on day one, and by day four, it's like only three things are possible.
That's exactly right.
And so anyway, I would say there's one other element here, though, that we have to be very cautious about.
If you have, we have one of two things going on.
Either you have a single shooter who is behaving in a cryptic way until he reveals himself by shooting at President Trump.
Or you have a conspiracy in which more than one person is involved which we don't yet know about.
If it is the latter, Then that thing has every reason to mislead us.
And one thing it could do is it could start putting, it could seed the idea of Water Tower into the minds of people who would go looking for evidence to mislead, right?
A misdirection.
And I'm used to this, by the way.
So I'm used to this from the COVID investigation.
There are, I don't like to use the air quotes with my hands, but there are investigative journalists that I believe are actually disinformation agents working for the GEC, the Global Engagement Center of the State Department.
Their job is to sow discord.
Their job is to, you know, metaphorically pee in the pool, so to speak.
Their job is to take an aspect of the story that has truth to it, for example, like the Wuhan military games, and then add an aspect to it that the virus was brought to the games by a bicyclist.
It's like, what?
That has nothing to do with this!
So by ruining an aspect of the story with disinformation, now, like you said, anybody who mentions the water tower, oh, you're a conspiracy theorist.
Anybody mentions the Wuhan military, now you're a conspiracy theorist.
Same thing.
I call that peeing in the pool.
Are they trying to pee in the pool on the water tower?
Sure they are.
Why?
Like you said, let's just see the footage of the Secret Service guys up there.
They must be up there, right?
They're either there or they weren't.
Which is it?
You know, tell me which branch of that tree we are on.
Were they up there?
Dude, I didn't start looking at the water tower until I heard the lady say it, right?
It's not my idea.
I'm only following clues.
That's what you're supposed to do.
You get a clue.
You talk to people and say, yeah, they shot the guy in the water tower.
No, you're lying.
Who's your source?
Who's your source, lady?
Well, actually, right.
I mean, why would she be lying to me?
So I do think what was the name of the center that you think does the peeing in the pool?
The GEC at the State Department.
So, to the extent that we are living through an era where all of our institutions are not only dishonest but incompetent, I think all the competent people went to that center and the peeing in the pool is done very effectively across many different topics.
You know that Elon, when he was doing his interviews, I think it was either with Tucker or Matt Taibbi, and he was looking into, you know, the Twitter files, so to speak.
And he said that the agency that's the most egregious was not the CIA or the FBI.
It's the GEC.
And he said that in his interview.
You guys can go check the transcripts.
I forget if it was the Matt Taibbi or the Tucker interview.
But he said it's the GEC that's the worst of all of them.
And that's in the State Department.
Yeah, that's in the State Department.
So that was Mike Pompeo.
I now I'm gonna go into my domain.
So I hear from a couple of ladies that there might be a shooter near the water tower.
Okay, like you said No, man, I'm not jumping to conclusions here.
I'm gonna explore it.
I want to investigate it.
So I'm gonna go into Google Earth and And I'm going to do some 3D analysis of the water tower.
Where is the water tower?
What is the perspective from the water tower?
Is the water tower five miles away?
Where is it relative to what's going on here?
What water tower is she even talking about?
I don't know, Butler, Pennsylvania?
So I'm going to open up a video here that has got all my groovy music, but I'm going to kill the volume because I don't want to make you upset.
And I'm going to play this video.
This is a part of me thinking, I want to hear that music.
That's why I'm taking it away, because now you can't have it anymore.
All right, so I'm going to play the video.
This is a 3D.
This is in Google Earth, and I'll walk you guys through what you're seeing.
Let me just play it for you, and I'll let you know that you kind of wait for it.
All right, so wait for it.
This is when I work, I turn on my screen recording.
So this is me doing this for the first time the day after the shooting.
This is really your initial foray into this material.
Yeah, or maybe the second one.
I mean, you know, maybe this is the second pass, but this is what I mean.
I want you guys to see the development, how the understanding keeps building and building.
It's exactly what you said about in biology.
It's the same thing.
Day one, day three, day five, day nine.
It changes.
Same thing happened with the Vegas shooting.
It took me eight days to find the first helicopter.
On day nine, I found the second.
On day 10, I found the third.
And that's when I got goosebumps.
I was like, this is out of control, man.
This is a whole nother level.
That's the same thing I'm finding here in just a matter of a few seconds.
So let me walk you guys through this.
Let me show you what this looks like.
This is Google Earth in 3D.
I'm gonna share my screen.
So this is the venue.
I've approximated the location of the president with a blue pin.
I've approximated the location of the shooter with a red pin.
I've approximated the location of the sniper team on the roof of the building closest to the shooter.
Okay?
And I've drawn a line to this new water tower feature that these ladies are talking about.
So this is The venue, give or take.
Now, upon further investigation, I have since moved the pin for President Trump a little further to the right in this image.
The stands are actually coming further away from those buildings.
But again, this was the first foray, so I'm showing you guys I just heard some ladies talk about a water tower.
What water tower?
Let's find the water tower and see if we can line this thing up.
So at the moment, it looks like you're working in two dimensions.
You've got these lines drawn on the ground.
Am I right?
The lines will only go on the ground in Google Earth.
I don't know how that's right.
Yeah, lines don't go up to the tops of things.
So they only stay on 2D, even though we can see the buildings in 3D.
So the buildings will be in 3D, but the lines are always on the surface of the ground.
I apologize.
Alright, so the red is where Crooks is, and the pins also disappear when you zoom in because the pins are ground level.
So as you zoom in on the pin, the pin's going to disappear.
But all those lines are converging on Crooks' location.
And what you're seeing right now is my first discovery.
So, very quickly I realized why the snipers on the roof weren't shooting at Crooks.
Because there's a tree in the way.
Now, for those who are listening and not able to watch, the tree in the way in Google Earth is rendered as a clumsy 3D tree-like structure.
We've got two disadvantages here.
One, that is a computer interpolated tree, and two, When the image that that tree comes from was made, the tree may have been smaller because it's grown since then.
It may have been bigger because it's been pruned back.
There's a certain amount we can't really even say without using some evidence from modern video, of which there are sure to be many, right?
Because of the number of people with cell phones who will have captured that tree just accidentally.
Now there's already some 3D analysis on YouTube from a channel, I think it's called AZ Tech, and it's a young lady who does like 3D Maya stuff.
It's unreal.
She's got her lines all wrong, but her 3D rendering is unbelievable.
I've got to get in touch with this lady and work with her.
If I can put my work into her...
Wow, we'd be at another level here.
But you're right.
I mean, who knows if they cut the tree down the day before the event?
We don't know that.
So that's a very important point.
The data that we're using here is from Google.
It's Google Earth.
They may have cut this tree down the day before, but according to Google Earth, the snipers do not have a shot at Crooks.
Do we have evidence that there's not a tree there?
So do we have reason to believe that this is inaccurate?
We would need to see evidence of that, right?
So, hold on, hold on.
I've got to go back.
The snipers who were famously on that roof behind what would have been Trump's right shoulder as he's facing the audience did not, if this tree is where we think it is from Google Earth, did not have line of sight
access to crooks but there was another set of snipers on the roof over his left shoulder yeah we're gonna get to them they're the ones who took the shot they're the ones who hit him in the mouth yeah they got him that that's the other set but this everybody was like why aren't they shooting why aren't they shooting because there's a tree in the way yeah they can't see him all right so this explains it now we have a logical explanation for why did those guys not shoot why didn't they take a shot at the guy well there's a tree in the way
So this is what we mean by the science of where.
So this is using photogrammetry, right?
So this is using satellite photographs to create the 3D objects.
And by lining it up, unless there's evidence that since this imagery was taken, the tree was pruned back or removed, We kind of have to go with this, right?
So, according to this, this explains it.
This explains why they wouldn't shoot the guy.
There's a tree in the way, all right?
So, that's number one.
Also, potentially explains why Crooks would have placed himself there.
Absolutely!
Dude, do you want to be out in the open or do you want to hide behind the tree from the snipers?
Yeah.
I'm going to hide behind the tree from the snipers.
That's just me, right?
I'd be hiding behind the tree from the snipers, too.
He's 20 years old.
He's been playing Call of Duty for the last eight years.
The kid knows to hide behind a tree, right?
I think we make that assumption.
He's pretty, you know, Call of Duty.
Assume the kid knows how to play Call of Duty pretty well.
He's hiding behind the tree, doesn't want to get shot in the head.
So he's shimmying up the roof, hides behind the tree, but he's got a clear shot at Trump.
He absolutely has a clear shot at Trump.
Now what's this water tower?
Oh, that water tower.
So this is the water tower the ladies are talking about.
Okay, let's check it.
Let's check this out.
What do you mean there's not a Secret Service guy up on the water tower?
Why would you not want to have a Secret Service guy up there?
So I'm doing the 3D analysis the day after the shooting.
So what you've just shown, for people who can't see it, is that as you lower your vantage point down to the approximate top of the water tower, you have a clear, unobstructed view of the location where Trump would have been standing.
It's an obvious place from which to shoot.
In fact, it would be... I'm no sniper, I have no such training, but it seems to me it would be the best place from which to either protect against all of the other elevated locations or to shoot at the president if that was what you were doing.
Both is the answer.
So yes, that would be the ideal Overwatch location for the entire venue.
And, if there is no Overwatch, that is the ideal sniper location.
From that location, you can take shots at the President, not just on the stage, but as they're evacuating him to the vehicle.
You can keep shooting.
Now, why did they not keep shooting?
Well, according to the lady in the red shirt and the red hat and the red hair, because they shot the guy in the water tower.
That's why he stopped shooting.
Well, that would make sense.
Otherwise, if I'm a shooter, if I'm an assassin from Russia, Korea, Iran, why would I stop shooting?
You guys want to run them to the car?
Go ahead.
Run them to the car.
I'll get you.
Go ahead.
Run.
Why would I stop shooting?
Because the lady in the red shirt says, because they shot the guy in the water tower.
Oh, okay.
All right.
All right.
Well, if we're going to play this through, there's another reason you might not.
Which is...
So obviously we are going to allow ourselves to talk about various possible scenarios.
It doesn't mean that we believe any of these things.
But one scenario, in fact, one likely fact that would join many of the possible scenarios, is that Crooks is a Patsy.
And so the status of Crooks, if Crooks is dead, then Continuing to shoot reveals that this is not a lone gunman.
So that would be another explanation for why the shooting might stop.
Just to put it on the table.
Well, Chris Martinson did an analysis yesterday.
It was dynamite.
It was.
I saw it too.
It's excellent.
All right, so we're going to talk about that in a couple minutes.
We're going to come to that because that's really important.
All right, so some of the stuff that he shares in that video is pivotally important and his conclusions are incorrect, and I'm going to show you why.
I was going to ask you about this because his conclusions and your conclusions disagree.
Yeah, so again, I respect what he did.
He did a nice job, and a lot of what he did I'm using.
In other words, I'm going to listen to what everybody says.
I'm going to use my discernment to figure out what's he getting right, what's he getting wrong, okay?
Well, Chris is a good friend of mine.
I will tell you, he'll be nothing but thrilled to have you point out stuff that he's got wrong so he can keep upgrading his analysis.
And that's how I work.
Same thing.
It's like if you came to me, if you and Heather came back in two weeks and were like, dude, we were checking into this, it's not H7N9, it's H9N2.
I'd be like, show me, what'd you find?
What, you know, show me what you got.
I'd be eager to see that.
I don't have a horse in the race.
They don't give me a brand new Corvette if it's really H7N9.
There's no prize here.
What do I care if it's H6N8?
I dropped that H1N1 1918 like it was a hot potato.
I don't care.
I shouldn't say I don't care if I'm wrong.
I guess I don't have a vested interest in a straw man hypothesis, is really the way I should say it.
I put the straw man up there to work around.
The minute the evidence indicates it's something else, that's why we call it a straw man hypothesis.
That's the whole idea.
Otherwise, you would have an iron man hypothesis, not a straw man hypothesis.
So this is what we're doing.
The process here is we're investigating all of it.
If it turns out all the cameras show there's nothing in the water tower, Maybe these women were mistaken.
And like you said, maybe it's an echo off a bill.
Who the hell knows?
But wouldn't it be kind of, I don't know, irresponsible to not look?
I think it would be irresponsible to not look, that's just me.
Irresponsible to not look, and I don't know how to explain this so that people really get it, but the fact that none of us in the public know what was supposed to have happened with the water tower is itself a kind of evidence.
Right?
Was there or was there not a Secret Service agent on the water tower?
If there was not, was it covered in some other way?
The fact that we don't know the answer to that question, that you can't just say, yes, it was in the plan, our site survey identified it as a potential hazard, and here's what we did.
The fact that we don't have that piece of the puzzle Means we are absolutely within our rights to question what's going on with the water tower.
That's not irresponsible speculation.
That is our responsibility as citizens to figure out why this story fails to make sense.
I agree with you completely.
So let me show you some video now.
This is a clip that Chris Martinson was using and it's from my video.
I don't think he maybe knows that.
Maybe he doesn't know that.
But this is from my video and what I did was I isolated the first shot.
This is the tweet of mine that now is at 6 million views.
This is why my Twitter blew up this week, is because of this tweet.
And what this tweet indicates, what this little video clip indicates, everything we're doing in this show, I've posted to Twitter.
So if you guys aren't following me on Twitter, you probably should.
You can see all this stuff on Twitter.
Alright, I'm at i underscore m a m underscore john cohen j-o-h-n-c-u-l-l-e-n and you can see all this stuff so this is up there what we're going to watch now is the first shot This is very important.
It's very hard for people to get through their head.
Everything you're going to see in this video, we are looking at one shot, just the first shot.
And I'm trying to figure out where is that first shot going and where is it coming from?
Okay.
How many points do we need to define a line?
Two would do it.
Two.
So if we have two points, we can pretty much define a line.
And if we have three points along the same line, that's like a checksum, right?
That acts as our checksum.
Okay?
So let's start with this.
Chris Martinson was using this footage.
And let's take a look at what we can see, what we can learn here.
Here we go.
I'm trying to start it without all my fancy music, because again, I don't want to get you bummed.
We're focusing on that rear corner, and you're going to see what we call ballistic evidence.
This is evidence of a round hitting something.
Watch closely.
Take a look what happened.
Take a look what happened.
All right.
You see this?
You see it?
I do.
Okay.
There's a puff of smoke.
Now that puff of smoke, is that puff of smoke moving from right to left?
Can you tell me?
Let's take a look real quick.
Is that moving to right from my perspective?
Okay.
- Yeah. - - What happened?
Take a look what happened.
- All right, so one of the things that Chris Martinson points out in this video is that there's a gentleman here in the middle, and the gentleman here in the middle is wearing like a flag shirt or a flag wrapped around himself or something.
He bends over at that very instant, and we're going to see him carried out by medics or the police a few minutes later.
Or actually, they don't carry him, they assist him out.
He has his flag wrapped around and he's holding his right torso.
He's holding his right torso.
Okay?
And he's to the left of the railing in this picture.
So we're now looking for a bullet that maybe pierced his right torso and that railing at the same time, which...
Kind of doesn't really line up well with Mr. Crooks, but okay.
This is, I'll show you guys a diagram in a second, but this is the set of bleachers.
If you're looking at the president, towards the president, these are the bleachers off to the right side, near where the hydraulic line got pierced.
So this is off to the right side, away from the water tower.
This is as far from the water tower as you could possibly be.
Now, I'm going to tell you guys in advance, this shot is kind of strange.
That's why this has 6 million views on Twitter.
Yep.
Because at the same moment that the shot hits that rail or, you know, a split second earlier, this guy in a white shirt and white shorts takes a dive.
Alright, now the question is, is he just slipping and falling, or is this what we would call a kinetic event?
Did something happen?
Did he get clipped?
Did he get nicked?
Did he get hit?
Let's watch this guy in white shorts, white shirt, and a red hat and see if we can figure out what's going on there with him.
So what's strange here is now we've got a guy in white shorts, white shirt, and a red hat going down at the same exact instant as we see that puff of smoke on the back rail.
I must say, when I saw this video, which I saw on your Twitter, my feeling was exactly the same chill I got when you put enough pieces together in the Las Vegas shooting that it was like, oh shit, this is actually highly credible.
Because what you've got here, for those who can't see it, is you've got three events in a line The most parsimonious explanation for what you've got captured in this single video, we don't have to worry about aligning it or anything like that, is you've got three kinetic events in a straight line that tells you you had an object.
I mean, A, in my mind, and I'm not an expert, it raises questions about What ammunition is involved, right?
This thing penetrates.
Right, we gotta go one step at a time.
But you definitely have the strong suggestion of a line that you could extrapolate from.
The post gets community noted.
Some ding-dong from the Netherlands or somewhere says, no, no, no, no, the guy in the white shorts and the white shirt, he just slipped.
He didn't get clipped.
He didn't get hit.
He just slipped and fell.
It's a coincidence that he slipped and fell at the same exact instant that the bullet hits the rail.
Now, keep in mind, what it appears to me we see here from the ballistic and photographic evidence is a bullet traversing the back rail, the back row of these bleachers is what it looks like I'm seeing here.
So I don't want to tell you guys what to think or what to see.
But what we're looking now for is evidence of, well, is this happening at the same time?
Or is this bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang?
I'm rocking the slider in the video editor on one shot.
I'm just going back and forth on one bullet.
I'm just playing it over and over and over.
It is one shot.
So everything that you guys are going to see now is what happened with the first shot.
The point here is that the president is talking.
You're going to hear the president speaking, and then it happens.
That means this is shot number one.
All right, watch closely.
That's it.
That's the first shot.
Did you hear any shots before that?
Nope.
I didn't.
Right.
Okay.
So if that's the first shot, that's the first shot.
Okay.
Take a look at what happened.
Have you heard any other shots prior to that?
Nope.
Take a look at what happened.
Okay.
So now everybody's in agreement.
This is the first shot.
Is the first shot coming from Crooks?
Apparently not.
You're going to answer that?
Apparently not.
So this is how I approach it.
Apparently not.
Is there further evidence here?
Yes, there is.
Let's finish up with this because again, this was the first video.
This is the one where I'm like, Oh my God, I got a guy down here and a guy down here.
I got to publish this.
Okay.
We got two points on a line.
I got a guy in white shorts, white shirt, red hat.
He takes a dive and I got a hitting the railing in the back.
Okay.
Now what Chris Martinson points out is it also hit the guy wearing the flag.
That's three points on a line.
And it hit the guy wearing the flag top in the right side of his torso as he's looking that way.
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
All right, so let's watch this.
- Take a look what happened. - - What happened?
Take a look what happened. - - - - If you want to really see something that said, take a look what happened. - What you know about a road?
Alright, so now we get to the diagramming.
So what I did was I took a photo of the venue that had been taken, I guess from a helicopter, drone, whatever, right afterwards.
So they still got the garbage and everything.
The cranes are still in place.
The flag is blowing.
I'm going to tell you right now that the wind that day saved President Trump's life.
You've got a breeze of 8 to 10, 12 knots, and it's blowing from the left to right in this photograph.
The wind took that bullet exactly... I mean, you couldn't get closer without killing them, and you couldn't get further away without hitting them.
The wind saved his life that day.
You've got a windage that took that bullet towards the bleachers away from his right ear.
The wind blew that bullet just enough.
And that's why he's still here.
Had there been no wind that day, he'd be dead.
All right.
So I'm going to, I'm going to red flag that claim.
Okay.
You can.
Here's why I'm going to red flag that claim.
Okay.
I doubt you could have information about the exact instant that that bullet is traveling.
Oh yeah.
No, no, no.
I get it.
I'm saying if the wind is consistent with what we see here with the flag.
So if it was as windy then as... and we'll look at some footage.
We'll look at footage and we'll see how fast is that flag moving.
You may not know, I'm an NRA expert long-distance shooter.
I shoot at 600 yards and 1,000 yards.
Oh, I didn't know that.
Competitively in the NRA.
So I'm used to reading flags and telling you based on that flag movement, I can tell you if that's 6 mile an hour or 10 mile an hour wind based on looking at flags.
And I know how to set a scope, so I know how to dial in windage.
And what I'm telling you is that a wind speed of 8 to 10 knots at 150 yards is about an inch and a half.
I'm not saying that the claim is implausible.
I'm just saying that I don't... It's immaterial.
Yeah, I'm just saying it's like a footnote.
It is immaterial.
It's a footnote.
So what we see here in this diagram, you guys can see this.
What I did was I, for this original one, again, this is the earliest diagram I made.
This is the first one to illustrate what am I seeing here?
I'm seeing the guy in blue, this little blue stick figure guy, is the guy in the white shorts and the white shirt.
Yeah.
Okay?
The guy in red is the guy with the American flag.
Okay?
Is the guy in red.
The blue stick figure is the guy in the white shirt, white shorts, red hat.
You with me?
Okay.
Yeah.
So the red, the white shirt, white shorts, red hat guy on the left is my little stick figure here in blue.
Yeah.
My stick figure in red is the guy with the American flag on his shoulders who gets clipped in the right hand side of his torso.
And then the railing is right behind him.
So for those who can't see this and are just listening, the line drawn from Crook's location through the guy in the back left corner of the stands makes enough sense, but it does not pass through the guy in the white clothes in the other side of the stands.
And given that you only have one shot, It suggests it didn't come from there.
Is that fair?
You got it.
So now somebody challenges me.
Somebody community notes this and says that the guy with the white shorts and the white shirt and the red hat, he's just slipping.
This is just a slip.
He gets up and he's fine.
He didn't get shot.
Nothing like that.
So this was the contention, is if that guy's just slipping and falling and he's not one of the injured and he wasn't reported as somebody who was injured, then this is a big nothing burger and, you know, we can move on, right?
So I'm like, okay, let's take a look.
Is this guy getting shot or is this guy just slipping on his, uh, kombucha?
Okay, let's take a look.
That's with no sound.
OK.
Is this guy getting shot or is this guy just slipping and falling down at the same exact moment as that first shot?
So now with sound.
OK, so what happens is now I get challenged and now I've got to figure out, OK, Am I right?
Am I wrong?
So I've got to go focus on the guy in white now.
And I do a video that says, uh, you know, let's take a look at the guy in white.
What is the story with the guy in white?
Is this guy slipping and falling?
Or is this, is this guy getting clipped?
He may just be getting grazed.
Dude, if you get grazed, you're going to fall down.
It hurts.
It hurts like hell, right?
Okay, I don't know.
Not definitive.
Let's say the guy's slipping and falling.
So, one of the guys that I've been working with on the COVID stuff is pretty technical, like a real lab person knows all this stuff of the lab stuff that I don't know.
And he sends me a little clip and says, watch this.
And let me share this with you.
So this is the, this is how we develop an understanding of what really happened here.
Is the guy who sent you this, somebody whose name you want to mention, or are you deliberately leaving it out?
He works anonymously on Twitter as Bubba's Lamb Chop Shop, at LM Bubba, and at LM Bubba is kind of a genius and has really helped me, along with a nurse named Amy, who's a cardiopulmonary nurse.
The two of them are unbelievable, the contributions that they've made.
So Bubba sends me this, Bubba's Lamb Chop Shop sends me this and says, Take a look at the lady in the middle with the white hat on, and is that her purse flying out of her hand?
Or is that her sleeve that's getting hit by the round?
Because if it is, you've got four points on the line, my friend.
So let's take a look at this.
Watch the lady with the white hat in the middle between the guy in the shorts and the railing.
There's a lady there.
Let's watch her.
Take a look at what happens.
What happens?
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
See, this is why ballistic evidence matters.
This is why ballistic evidence matters.
Alright, so then, it dawns on me.
What happens, what happens, what happens, what happens?
This is why ballistic evidence matters.
All right, so then it dawns on me, dude, let's look at everybody in the back row.
Let's go down the back row.
We're looking at one shot.
Do we see evidence of a kinetic disturbance as it moves down that row?
That's what I'm looking for.
Do I see evidence of a kinetic disturbance as the shot moves down the row?
So now we're going to isolate everybody in the back row on the same shot.
Watch this.
Take a look at what happened.
Take a look at what happened.
Wow.
Did you catch that or no?
Oh, I did.
Alright.
What I'm about to do is blow your mind.
What you're seeing here are two different shots.
The shot that hits the railing is not the same shot that hits the guy in the black pants and the white shirt.
The shot that hits the guy in the black pants and the white shirt in the hip or in that liver is actually a millisecond after the shot that hits the rail so the shot's going to hit the rail first and then you're going to see the guy in the black pants white shirt get hit it's a millisecond later all right so watch carefully you're watching the corner rail puff of smoke Then the guy in the black pants white shirt gets hit.
That wouldn't make any sense if that shot's coming from Crooks.
What you're seeing now are two different shots.
The first shot traverses the back row.
The second shot hits the guy with the black pants and white shirt.
Watch closely.
This is when I figure it out.
Dude, I figure it out in real time.
What you know about rolling down.
The red line is the first shot.
And the red line is going right down those bleachers, but it's the second shot that hits the guy in the black pants and white shirt, and that shot is coming from Crooks, it appears.
It appears that shot came from Crooks on the roof, but the first shot did not.
The first shot is traversing this back row.
And hopefully you guys can see the difference in the timing here when it hits the back railing versus when it hits the guy in the black pants and the white shirt.
It's a split second after.
So it's going to hit the corner railing.
And a millisecond later, the guy in the black pants, white shirt is going to take it in the hip.
Watch again.
See if you see what I'm seeing.
Do you see the delta in time?
It's a tiny delta in time.
It's not big.
You guys see it?
I see it.
Um, it confuses the hell out of me.
I can't understand the event.
Okay, it's okay.
That's okay.
All you have to do is see it, right?
So if you see it, I can explain it.
I'm going to explain it to you in a diagram, all right?
So I got the pictures to explain it.
But once you realize that the guy in the black pants and the white shirt is being hit with a different round Then the round that hit the guy with the flag.
Okay, the guy with the flag on his shoulders, whatever.
He's being hit with the first shot that hits the railing.
The lady with the purse.
Whether it's her purse, her iPhone, a hat, or a hero sandwich.
I don't know, guys.
Something in her hands is flying.
Is it flying from right to left, or is it flying from left to right?
It's flying from left to right.
Is the plume of smoke going left to right?
The plume of smoke is going left to right.
Does the guy in the shorts look like he slipped on his kombucha?
Or does it look like he got clipped in the hip?
Looks to me like he got clipped in the hip.
Okay, we're seeing the kinetic disturbance all the way down the row.
The lady next to the person, or the lady before the lady with the purse, the lady to the left of her, lifts her arms up like this, and is like, you know, is clearly stunned by what just happened.
And then the guy in the back corner gets hit, the rail gets hit.
We needed two points to make a line.
I like to have an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Okay, now we have an overwhelming number of points on a line that shows us that the first shot moves down the back row.
Take a look at what happened.
Take a look at what happened.
What happened?
Thank you.
All right.
I think that's pretty definitive right there.
It raises some questions.
Sure it does.
Several questions.
I will just put them on the table.
Maybe it's just worth doing that.
One is the first shot.
There are two shots.
That happened almost simultaneously.
Correct.
That is an amazing coincidence.
Unless there's coordination and even that level of coordination is beyond human.
No, no, no, no.
Dude.
So this is another approach.
So one of the ways I go into this is if this was Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris 3.0, What would it look like?
Okay, a bunch of pimply-faced Call of Duty kids with some Motorola walkie-talkies, some high-powered rifles.
Could they pull this off?
Could a couple of pimple-faced incels Embarrass the Secret Service and FBI.
No, no, no, no.
That's not what I'm saying is beyond human.
You're talking about a millisecond difference in the pulling of the trigger of two weapons not in the same place.
But if we had walkie-talkies, if you and I had just Motorola Family Channel walkie-talkies, and we were planning to do this, and I said, on my count, ready?
3, 2, 1, fire!
It would be within milliseconds.
It would be like that.
It would be within milliseconds.
Obviously, even a coincidence could put them there, but it does suggest coordination between But I don't want you to think it's superhuman.
I don't want you to think that is super... that's not.
If you and I were on walkie-talkies and I said on my count we would be that close.
We would be that close.
So one question for me is two bullets that masquerade as one is interesting.
The lack of the press conference in which we discuss the damage to the railing and the fate of that projectile is interesting to me.
Have we found it?
Have we found a fragment of it?
Do we have the railing?
Is the railing under somebody's custody?
And then to have, what do you have, six people in the back row who appear to have had a interaction with this projectile?
Something like that?
Looks like that to me.
So if that's true, where is the press conference about all of the people who were either slightly injured or had their clothes torn or right?
It would seem that the fact that many citizens had an interaction with a projectile at a would-be assassination of a former president would create many different stories that were worth telling and worth hearing and yet what we have is We are left to guess what these things mean.
We are left to find them in video that was not intended to look at these people at all, and so it's out of focus and, you know, jumpy.
Well, let's do a call to action.
I mean, six degrees of Kevin Bacon, if anybody knows anybody that was at the event.
If it was anywhere near the back rows, please have them reach out to Dark Horse Podcast.
We need your personal account.
We need to hear what you heard.
We need to hear, you know, what you felt.
It's important.
So if anybody knows anybody that was there, please reach out to Dark Horse Podcast.
It's just amazing to me that that's not circulating already, right?
If a bullet ripped your purse out of your hand, that wouldn't end up being described on your Instagram somehow?
If you're 72 years old?
Do you have an Instagram?
No, but you know, maybe your granddaughter says, you know, my grandmother was there and her purse has a hole in it.
You know?
Are you hearing anything?
There's not a single interview with an eyewitness.
They're not talking to anybody.
Right?
They're cut.
Right.
Okay.
So let's look at these diagrams because the lines are important.
It's important that we line these lines up.
Okay.
So let me show you why this matters.
Alright, so this is the diagram of the venue that I had been working off of initially.
So, we're going to start with this.
And what you're seeing here, again, the guy with the blue, the little blue dude, and then the little white guy, those are the people that got shot along the back row.
One all the way on the left side, you know, white shorts, white shirt, the guy in the thing.
Now, if the bullet is traveling down that back row, Where might it be coming from?
Well, we know it's moving left to right.
We see whatever that lady was holding.
It could have even have been the sleeve on her jacket or a sweater she's holding.
The bullet just catches the sweater.
And I don't know what, it doesn't matter what it is.
It's moving left to right.
Okay?
And we see everything seems to be going that way and the puff of smoke is moving left to right.
Well, that would mean the bullet was coming from the left.
So if I extend the line from that back railing, where does that line end up going?
It ends up going to the Secret Service guys.
So there's these Secret Service guys up here on the roof.
The sniper team.
And the line goes right past them.
Now have you guys seen the footage of the Secret Service snipers that pull back?
It looks like they flinch and they pull back from there.
Have you seen that?
Yep.
Okay.
Why would a Secret Service sniper move his shooting position?
What would be a good rationale for moving your shooting position?
Couldn't see the target.
Or?
Target changed.
You're taking fire.
If you're taking fire, you need to move your shooting location.
We see them both back up.
One of them is in the fetal position, ducking.
The guy to the right, the guy you don't see much of, is in the fetal position, ducking.
The guy who looks like Mr. Macho Man with the tripod, he backs up and moves the tripod.
You don't move your shooting position!
You don't move your scope?
What the?
Dude.
You don't do that.
You gotta set everything up with the bubble level and everything.
You don't move it.
Unless you're taking fire.
He moves back.
That first round was intended to take out the sniper.
It just misses him and he jumps back and it goes right down that back row and hits a bunch of bystanders.
That shot is intended to take out the sniper.
That's the first shot.
Okay, so I finally understand what you're trying to tell me.
The sniper Hypothetical scenario the sniper is a threat to an operation.
Is that the idea?
Hell yeah, take the snipers out first.
That's you.
Absolutely Call of Duty baby.
Call of Duty 3.0.
Take out the snipers first Hard for me to imagine If you've got a lone gunman as a patsy and your snipers Turn up dead.
What is going to be argued that the Patsy took them out and again?
I don't I don't I'm not at I don't get to the conclusion point yet.
I'm simply looking at ballistic evidence.
Where's the ballistic evidence telling me the bullets coming from?
Tell me the bullets coming from right by that snipers head.
Went right past his head.
That's what the ballistic evidence is showing me.
Assuming the kid on the roof is a patsy at this point, he took shots.
The kid took shots.
We see him.
He's on the roof with a gun.
He takes shots and then he's shot in the face.
They shoot him in the mouth.
Wait, wait, wait.
Maybe you've seen something I haven't.
Sure.
I have not yet seen evidence that he took shots.
I have seen evidence that shots come from Approximately his direction.
Okay, fair enough.
I've heard conjecture about the possibility that they came from the building below.
Yeah.
Certainly the presumption would be that they came from the guy with the gun on the roof.
I'm okay with that as a presumption.
I believe he did.
Okay.
And the evidence that Chris Martinson showed in his video, which again, we're going to come to that because that's pivotal.
That is the linchpin in all this.
This is what And I don't know if he understands this to this degree, but the evidence that he shows in his video blows the whole thing out of the water, right?
So he's showing that, you know, the sound signature is different and that's two weapons.
It's so much beyond that.
It's like, yes, and a million other things in addition to that.
But yes, he's on the right track.
We have a shot whizzing past the Secret Service guy.
He ducks and takes cover, moves his position, and that same round is the round that we just saw traversing the back row.
When you see the sniper flinch, was that on the fifth shot?
Was that on the seventh shot?
Or did he flinch on the first shot?
He flinches on the first shot.
They were trying to take out the sniper.
That shot was meant to take him out.
Okay, I'm looking at that red line disappearing.
Into the woods.
Off the screen, yeah.
Into the woods.
It's like, okay, well that's kind of weird and uncomfortable.
The other end of the line actually goes somewhere interesting, but we see the ballistic characteristics of both the little puff of smoke and the lady's purse or whatever going left to right.
So the bullet's not going right to left.
There's no way the bullet's going right to left.
It's not.
Okay?
It's going left to right.
So if it's going left to right and it comes down from there, It's pointing to the forest, as uncomfortable as that is.
Okay?
So we put that up on the shelf, and we keep looking around.
And we say, okay, the fire chief guy, he's over on the left side, Bleachers.
He's the guy in red.
I got a little stick figure guy on the left side.
That's the fire chief.
He gets shot in the head, and he's passed away.
That's comparatory.
He's on the other, Bleachers, on the other side.
Crooks has a line right at Trump.
I'm colorblind and I am not spotting the guy in red.
Can you point to him?
I don't know if that works, and I have a PDF.
Yeah, yeah.
I can see it.
Okay, so there's a... Right there.
Got it.
Okay, so that's our fire chief.
Fire chief dies in the other bleacher.
Correct.
He's in the other bleachers.
He takes one in the head, and that's consistent with a shot from Crooks.
Yeah.
Alright, so a shot from Crooks lines up with him.
If you're shooting at President Trump, hitting the fire chief, perfectly reasonable.
And it lines up with the hydraulic line that gets hit.
So if you're shooting at Trump from Cook's position, hitting the hydraulic line as an accidental downrange, absolutely.
Yeah.
Why not?
Sure.
You know, that's absolutely reasonable.
Okay.
For those, for those who are not putting that together in the initial videos that emerged, you may have noticed.
That as the shots are happening, there's some spectacular release of some fluid as the speaker, I guess, that the, is it a forklift or a crane, the crane is holding up, comes dropping rapidly.
So that is taken by everybody, I think, to be that one of the bullets hits a hydraulic line and bursts it, and the pressure that's holding this thing up dissipates explosively.
And what we're seeing here is that that hydraulic line is exactly in line with a shot at Trump from Crook's position.
So that's perfectly reasonable from a ballistic perspective.
Perfectly reasonable to expect that a shot from Crook's at Trump would A, hit the fire chief.
Perfectly reasonable.
And B, hit the hydraulic line on the crane.
Absolutely reasonable.
It's in line.
That works.
And the guy in the black pants and the white shirt.
The guy in the black pants and the white shirt that gets hit appears to be getting shot from Crooks because he lines up as well on a shot with Trump.
Okay?
So now, if there are two shooters, and they're on radios, and we say, okay, on my mark, three, two, one.
One guy's going for the sniper, one guy's going for the president.
The guy who goes for the president possibly clips his ear.
Is it possible that Crooks hits the president's ear?
Yes, it is.
If he did, and that's the second shot, That shot that hit the President's ear hit the man in the black pants and white shirt.
The shot that hit the President's ear ended up in the man in the black pants and the white shirt, because that's that instant second shot.
People think the President was hit with the first shot.
The first shot hits a railing!
Okay, another question.
The guy in the black pants standing right in front of the railing where we see that little explosive release of dust where it hits the railing.
Your working hypothesis here is that the explosive release of dust at the railing or whatever it is, the bullet disintegrating, whatever causes that puff, Is not the same round as hit the guy in black standing just adjacent to it.
Correct?
Standing in front of him.
The guy in the black pants and the white shirt is hit an instant after it hits the railing.
Okay.
We were rocking back and forth, right?
On the list of press conferences that didn't bark, There may be a round in a human being that is the president.
Yes.
Right.
Which then.
is a very important piece of evidence because it will tell you very likely even if the all weapons used were the same caliber and firing the same rounds the same type of ammunition the individual signature of any given weapon can be ascertained by
Usually it would be the FBI, I guess, but it would be possible with ballistics to ascertain whether or not the rifle that was found on the roof with Crooks is the rifle that shot the bullet that landed in this guy.
Easily.
All right, so it's 3D laser-based technology that does all the stuff.
It's remarkable.
So if we had the bullet in the guy's hip, the guy in the black pants and the white shirt, if they remove that surgically, that can absolutely be matched to the rifle.
Absolutely.
Unless, you know, it's frangible and exploded, but they can match it.
Ah, but that Correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, this is not my area of expertise, but if it was a frangible bullet, it would not likely have stayed intact.
Right.
And then it's a mess inside.
He's got a lot of bits and pieces, and then it's very difficult to match it to the rifle.
Very difficult.
Which is why these ballistic calculations are so important.
That's why I'm doing this stuff.
To say, is it reasonable?
Could he have shot this?
What are we seeing on the film?
We see the guy in the black pants and white shirt shot an instant after that first shot.
Enough that most people think the president was hit with the first shot.
He was not.
The first shot hits the railing.
Again, I'm going to keep making this point because I think it's just going to get lost.
I'm not lost between you and me, but lost in the wider world.
The fact that we have not been told how many shell casings were on the roof with Crooks, what ammunition he had, how many bullets remained in the magazine he was using, those are straightforward pieces of evidence that we could be told now that limit the ability of somebody to go back and retcon whatever comes up later.
So the idea that evidence that is simply factual, a count of how many shell casings, is not a judgment call, it's not something that requires analysis.
Here's how many shell casings we came up with.
Here's how many unfired rounds remain in the magazine, right?
These things could simply be told to us.
We could be told what the ammunition was, right?
That is, there's a lot of information in that.
Lay people won't necessarily know it, but people who know a lot about weapons will understand that there's a lot of information contained in whether it was 223 or 5.56 NATO, whether it was full metal jacket, or whether these bullets were fancier, whether they were designed to disintegrate, all of that stuff we could be told now.
And the reason not to tell us Well, one reason not to tell us is because you don't know what story you're going to have to explain later and you want to leave yourself maximal flexibility to make the so-called evidence fit what we in the public have been able to deduce from other kinds of analyses.
I can't imagine why President Trump and his inner circle would want to cover up the true story.
What would the motivation be for Donald Trump, Don Jr., the inner circle of folks there, to want to hide who really did this?
If it was Iran, if it was Korea, if it was Russia, if it was China, why would he want to hide that?
Why would he want to hide that a Chinese operative did this?
Now, I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying, why would he want to hide anything?
Yeah, agreed.
All right, so if it turns out it's not just one in cell, you know, not just one pimply-faced 20-year-old kid with a rifle spending too much time in call of duty, it's three of them.
So what?
Why would we want to hide that?
In other words, we know about Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris.
Why would you not want to tell us that there might be another guy if you shot a guy in the water tower?
Where's that guy?
What'd you do with him?
Where'd he go?
Well, actually it does it does raise a question.
Okay, the press conferences that would ordinarily accompany an event like this are You haven't seen him and I haven't seen him So something's weird.
Maybe Maybe there's some explanation, but I don't know what it is.
But at the very least Trump, as the victim of an assassination attempt in which he was actually injured, is entitled to this information.
The gentleman who's killed his family is entitled to the information.
And the public is entitled to the information.
So I would hope that the Trump camp would actually Exert public pressure to get the basic facts, as well as they are known, revealed to limit the possibility of somebody creating a magic bullet kind of scenario later to explain the inexplicable.
So I feel the same way.
I can't imagine why anybody in the Trump camp, Donald Trump, Don Jr., any of his inner circle, why would they want to hide Any type of a collusion, any type of a cover-up here.
Again, at one end of the spectrum to me, it's Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, 3.0.
It's another bunch of lunatic kids with guns, go berserk, and today's the day they're going to die.
That's at one end of the spectrum.
At the other end of the spectrum, it's JFK, 2.0.
It's a CIA plot.
So, It's too soon for me to tell.
We're six days in.
I want to look at the ballistic evidence, which is going to tell me where the gunshots are coming from.
Once you see gunshots coming from different places, well, that kind of changes who it could be doing this, right?
So that's why, to me, the ballistic evidence has to come first.
This comes first before... Now, do we have ballistic evidence that there's gunshots coming from the kid on the roof that they call Thomas Crooks?
Yeah, I think we do.
I think we do.
And I think that that evidence was provided, in fact, by Chris Martinson.
So again, we'll keep coming back to him in a second, but it's important for us to develop this.
The screen I'm going to show you now shows the guy in the black pants and the white shirt as a stick figure.
So this is now further development of the understanding, right?
So now I'm looking at the guy in the black pants and the white shirt is my stick figure guy over here.
And I've got him in the stands, and he's just a little bit in front of the guy with the American flag shirt.
The guy in the American flag shirt is a row behind him and gets hit in the right side of the torso.
We see that in Chris Martinson's video.
He shows them carrying them down the side of the bleachers, and we see that they assist the guy with the flag, and he's shot in the right side of his torso.
In the back row, while he's looking... How do you get shot in the right side of the torso, and it hits the rail, and it hits the guy in the white... Now the guy in the black pants and the white shirt gets hit in the hip.
An instant later.
Might that shot have come from Crooks?
Is that the shot that hit the President's ear?
Quite possibly?
But maybe not.
But maybe not.
It is possible that Crooks did not hit the president.
Now how is that possible?
It's possible because I believe we have a third shooter.
Alright, so this makes this thing even crazier, right?
So now, if it's not just a second shooter, now it appears we have a third shooter.
So the first thing to get, you know, sort of wrap your head around is, that first shot is the red line in this diagram.
That hits a bunch of bystanders and the railing, and that that shot was intended to hit the counter snipers on the roof.
That's what that shot is for.
Have you, is there, obviously there are other ways it could happen, but is there an object in the forest in that direction?
There's trees.
There's trees in that direction.
And we'll get to, you know, you mean there's a sniper in a tree?
That's Western Pennsylvania, bro.
You know how many climbing tree stands Cabela sells?
Do you have any idea?
Oh, I don't know.
A dozen different models of climbing tree stands.
I know it sounds crazy, but so did helicopters.
They're shooting from helicopters in Las Vegas?
Yeah, yeah.
Sounds crazy.
You've got a good track record with me on this one because you've found the helicopters, you know, you can actually see the helicopters that you had hypothesized in video that you were able to unearth and other kinds of evidence.
So I'm willing to accept, you know, a lot of things.
It's also not impossible that you had You know, I guess, uh, a drone or something that would create an elevated position from right.
So let's talk about this.
So Occam's razor tells us, keep it simple.
A flying drone with a rifle on it.
That's a little complicated.
Yeah.
High powered.
All right.
Do you, I don't know if you have the ability to pull up your browser and go to Cabela's as I'm explaining this to you, but if you go to Cabela's.com, which is like Bass Pro Shops or whatever, You can buy something called a climbing tree stand.
It's what these guys who hunt use.
And Cabela's doesn't sell one climbing tree stand.
They've got 10 different models that go from $199 up to $450, based on how sophisticated a climbing tree stand.
My point is, you don't come from the world of climbing tree stands.
Yeah.
Guys in western Pennsylvania that hunt, they've got five of them in the garage because every year they buy a new one that's a little bit lighter weight and this one's got the USB charger built in and the heated seats.
Well, here's, here's the problem though.
I'm not saying that you, you might not be right.
Maybe there's something I've never gone hunting.
I don't know what people do.
However, I do come from a world where people climb trees, right?
That's a biology thing too.
The likelihood you, I guess what I'm inferring from what you have on the screen here and the red line that comes from off in the direction of the forest is that somebody would need to be I can see roughly how tall those trees are compared to, say, for example, the water tower.
And you'd have to be at the very, very top.
And that's probably not a place that a tree stand could sit.
I'm not suggesting this is what happened.
I'm saying the ballistic evidence indicates this.
Okay.
Again, I'm not one of these pound your fist on the desk guys, the shooters in the forest.
I'm not, I'm not that guy.
I'm the guy who says the lines are pointing to the forest as uncomfortable as that may be.
As uncomfortable as it may be that there's a meteor crater in Akure, Nigeria that was created March 28th, it's there!
Yep.
It's there, okay?
What do you want me to tell you?
You want me to tell you this lines up with Dunkin' Donuts?
No, no, no, no, no.
I'm saying it jokingly.
The point is, it doesn't line up with the Dunkin' Donuts.
It doesn't line up with the Burger King or the Mazda dealership.
It lines up with the Woods.
Yep.
Okay?
We put that on the shelf now.
And we say, okay, sure as hell looks like the shot at the Snipers came from the Woods.
That's pretty weird and awkward.
Because this is introducing flying rifles on drones and climbing tree stands and crazy stuff.
Yep.
And on the shelf, okay?
We've got the ballistic evidence, though.
It says, well, the shot obviously came from the left.
Came from the left.
We see the snipers on film.
When we hear the first shot, they're not shooting at people in the back row.
Wasn't them.
We see them taking cover.
Well, you know, it's not them.
They're not shooting at them.
They're taking cover and backing up.
Cowering.
The guy on the right was cowering in the fetal position.
Had his knees underneath.
I was like, wait, what are you?
Okay, so again, this raises a question.
Because if those snipers were taking fire and enough to move, then they knew they were taking fire.
Right?
So the question is, can we hear them say that that's not what happened?
You know?
You got it.
So this is, these are the questions that this is starting to introduce.
Were you, were you, why'd you guys move?
Yeah.
Do you frequently change your shooting position as the shooting begins?
You move, you're on focus.
Everything is dialed in and focused on the target.
And then you move your rifle.
What are you doing that for?
Because you're taking fire.
That shot whizzes past them.
How does it not whizz past them if it just went down the back row?
You see the line that goes down the back row.
Again, I'm not putting the snipers where I think they were to make it line up.
I just draw the red line and I'm like, oh man, the red line goes right past where the snipers were.
Uh-oh.
You tell me.
You tell me.
You think that shot that was made down that back row, were they shooting at the President?
Was that shot at the President?
If that was a shot at the President, man, you suck.
That is a lousy shot.
If that shot was taken at the President, hit the back railing of the... So who are they shooting at?
Yes, you can.
And I think it is clear, I mean, you know, who knows what we don't know, but I think it is clear that that shot is impossible from Crook's known location.
A shot that runs deep.
Yeah, to hit everybody in the back row, I mean, yeah.
A line is a line.
Right.
So that's the kinetic evidence, the ballistic evidence, photographic evidence, That the first shot was not taken by Crooks.
It was taken by somebody else.
That instantaneous second shot that hits the guy in the black pants and white shirt may, in fact, be the shot that hits the President's ear and lands in this guy's hip or liver or wherever he got hit.
So, as you said, this is major.
Alright?
Now, it's important that we keep looking at this ballistic evidence because there's another aspect here that I need to share with you that's really important.
As the president is speaking, he's talking about immigration and how immigration was, or illegal immigration, was as low as it's ever been in the history of mankind since the dawn of time under his administration.
And that's what he's talking about.
Now, he's talking about a chart that they've got up on the Jumbotron.
The chart is showing the dip and the rise, and he's got red arrows on the chart, and that's what he's referring to.
Now, for those of you who are squeamish or whatever, this is going to get to the point where the shots ring out.
We're looking at the present.
You're not going to see the present get hit.
The guy who's filming this moves the camera back the instant that the shooting begins, but this is the buildup right before he gets I want you guys to watch this and I want you to answer the question at the end of this.
What is he gesturing towards and glancing at?
What is he gesturing towards and glancing at?
Okay.
Guys, take a look at that chart.
Take a look at the arrow on the bottom.
See the big red arrow, right?
So that's what I left.
What is he gesturing at and glancing at?
Guys, take a look at that chart.
Take a look at the arrow.
What's he pointing at?
He's pointing at the Jumbotron.
He's pointing at the Jumbotron and he keeps glancing at the Jumbotron.
He's glancing at the Jumbotron.
He's pointing at it.
He's glancing at it.
Alright?
It's important that you remember this and this angle.
He is pointing at and glancing back again and again and again at this jumbotron.
Okay?
Why does that matter?
It matters because of ballistics.
If, in fact, he is glancing at that Jumbotron at the moment he is shot, there is no way that Crooks hits him in the right ear.
Crooks would have hit him in the left side of the head.
If he's glancing at the Jumbotron, Crooks hits him in the left temple, and the President is dead.
The president glanced at the Jumbotron for an instant, and last night at the Republican convention, he confirmed it.
Now, is he sending me a secret message again?
Yes, he is.
What he said last night is, if I didn't turn my head at that last moment, I'd be dead.
Don Jr's already seen my stuff.
He knows what I'm suggesting.
Don Jr's seen it.
The President said it last night.
If I didn't turn my head at that last moment, I'd be dead.
We see him glancing at the Jumbotron.
What he's suggesting is, if he didn't turn and glance at the Jumbotron, he'd be dead.
Well, if he's looking at the Jumbotron from his position, Crook sits him in the left side of the head.
Yep, I see it.
If he's looking at the Jumbotron, what is directly behind the Jumbotron?
The top of the water tower.
Uh-oh.
This gets very awkward.
Because we've got footage that shows something shadowy moving around, potentially, on top of the water tower.
And this footage was called to my attention, again, by the community of people that follow me and send me stuff.
And they're like, well, what's that up there?
Is that just the escape hatch or the access thing and the shadow of it?
Or is there something moving up there?
Um, many people are not aware that there was other sniper locations at the, at the place.
So a lot of people know about the ones on one roof and the ones on the other roof.
Not a lot of people know about this sniper location.
Um, and I'll be exploring that tonight on my show.
I do a podcast weekly and I'll be getting into this.
This aspect of it, you know, if he's getting shot, again, let's go back to this video.
Let's look at the angle when he's gesturing.
This is really pivotal because this is going to determine, was he hit by crooks?
Or was he hit by another shooter?
And that would change everything here.
So again, look at what he's gesturing towards and what he's glancing at.
Guys, take a look at that shot.
Take a look at the arrow on the bottom.
See the big red arrow?
Last night at the Republican Convention, he said, if I didn't turn my head at the last minute, I'd be dead.
The whole contention here is, which way is he looking?
Is he looking this way?
Is he looking that way?
Is he looking this way?
Is he looking that way?
You've seen the 3D wire diagram that shows the animation.
He said it last night.
He said, if I hadn't turned my head, I'd be dead.
He just told you where the shooter was last night.
And you've challenged me in the past and you said when he says 1917 Spanish Flu, 1917 Spanish Flu, do you think he's sending you a secret message?
I was the only one saying 1918 Spanish Flu.
I was the only one on that bandwagon.
And I was telling Laura Ingraham and she's telling him.
So he knows 1918, 1918, 1918 Spanish Flu.
And he's going to the podium and saying 1917 Spanish Flu?
Who the hell do you think he's talking to?
Carrot Top?
Well, I have to, no, no, I have to tell you, I've seen your compilation of President Trump saying 1917 Spanish flu like a dozen times.
I've seen him say it a dozen times in this one compilation.
I still don't understand the implication of it, which I would imagine you will tell me at some point.
So I know what you're talking about.
I don't know anything about whether he's talking to you in particular.
I mean, in fact, isn't it too early for him to be aware of you?
No, because I was, so I was communicating with Laura Ingram, Laura Ingram.
So behind the scenes, this is April, 2020, and we're shifting subjects a little bit, but it involves Trump.
So during early stage COVID, Laura Ingram reaches out to me behind the scenes.
We ended up talking on Skype and I am sending her charts.
I'm sending her CDC stuff.
I'm acting like an analyst, sending her materials behind the scenes.
And she doesn't, nobody knows this.
And I'm sending her all kinds of stuff.
And she's saying there, so what do you think it is?
I said, it's reconstructed 1918 pandemic influenza.
It's the deadliest virus on earth.
Fauci resurrected it, dug it up in Alaska.
It's got a whole backstory to it.
And I'm telling her this.
He texts her constantly back in 2020.
He's sending her SMS's all day long.
And she's sending me eight or 10 emails a day.
And one of the first emails that kind of knocked me out of my chair was, forgive it, but she said the email was, the big guy wants to know about Brazil.
What should I tell him?
And the big guy in this case was Trump.
And this was a message that I got from Laura Ingraham.
And I said, you got to tell him it's going to get worse before it gets better.
It's not going to be good.
And so she's communicating with me and then getting back to him.
And I'm telling her it's 1918 Spanish flu, it's 1918 Spanish flu, it's reconstructed pandemic 1918, H1N1, Jeffrey Taubenberger, Johan Hultin, Terrence Tumpy, Anne Reed.
Dude, I had this thing covered top to bottom.
And I was wrong by a year.
And he goes to the podium and says, it's 1917 Spanish flu.
And you just said you weren't sure, well, what's the significance of that?
1917 Spanish flu was not H1N1.
In 1917, there was another pathogen that's a bird flu.
And Jeffrey Talbenberger is probably the world's leading expert on influenza, wrote a paper and said, yeah, the 1918 H1N1, and the 1917 strain that we now have samples of because Warby got them from England it's not even close like these are barely related on the biological tree it's like you know They're, these things weren't, it's not like Delta and Omicron in the world.
So the, the circulating strain in 1917 was H7N9?
No, no, no.
But it was a bird flu that the key element of it and the key element in 1917 and 1918, and the reason they couldn't tell the difference back then, they didn't think, Taubenberger didn't figure this out until like five years ago or something like this paper's new.
They both don't need trypsin, and they both don't need an ACE2 receptor, which is game-changing, meaning these things can attach to anything, and they don't need trypsin to pierce the cell.
That means they can infect red blood cells, the nervous system, and they traverse the blood-brain barrier and can infect the brain, and it causes encephalitis lethargica, which is sleeping sickness.
Sounds a lot like long COVID to me.
We know this from the world's leading expert on influenza, Jeffrey Talbenberger.
Talbenberger writes the paper that tells us 1917 Spanish flu was bird flu.
Not H1N1.
I didn't know this.
Obviously, somebody briefed the president on it, because he wouldn't know that, just coming into office, like, yeah, you guys know that story about 1917?
He wouldn't know that unless he was briefed.
He was briefed.
They told him, yeah, it's like the 1917 bird flu, and it causes sleeping sickness, which is encephalitis lethargica, which is brain damage.
So we'll, we'll talk about that another time, but that's when he says 1917 Spanish flu, that was a bird flu.
That's the significance of it.
And H7N9 is a bird flu that also doesn't need trypsin, doesn't need an ACE2 receptor, but we'll talk about that.
And so what John unearthed and has compiled and you can find on his Twitter and elsewhere is a, an anomalously large number of places where Trump is at a, is speaking to somebody and invokes.
the Spanish flu and uses the date 1917, which is conspicuous because it's not the date we all know.
So anyway, that piece of evidence is secure for sure.
All right.
So now we've got this question of Trump is on stage.
He's gesturing towards the Jumbotron.
He's got his right arm up, and his right arm is pointing at the Jumbotron.
And he's glancing at the Jumbotron.
And at the Republican Convention last night, he told us, if I didn't turn my head at that last minute, I'd be dead.
All right?
So this is the video clip.
I'll just run a second of it.
So you see, he's looking back and forth.
So if he looks a little bit to his left and he's looking towards Crooks, we're good to go.
That means the shot could have come from Crooks and eclipses right here and hits the guy in the black pants, white shirt.
But he's moving his head around, and it's tough.
Again, I'm not a pound-my-fist-on-the-desk guy.
I'm not going to tell you definitively.
I'm looking for possibilities.
Is it possible it came from Crooks?
Is it possible it came from somewhere else?
And if it came from somewhere else, where would the somewhere else be?
Here we go.
So that's when I left office.
That was the lowest point, and that comes right from the government services, comes right out of Border Patrol.
Take a look at that.
So that arrow is the lowest amount of illegal immigration ever in recorded history.
Alright, he's pointing, he's gesturing, he's glancing.
Alright, so now, if that's the case, Let's take a look.
How does Crooks hit his right ear if he's glancing at the Jumbotron?
And this is where we get into the ballistic awkwardness of it all.
If he's glancing at the Jumbotron Crooks on the rooftop is going to hit him in the left side of the head in the temple.
Crooks cannot see Trump's right ear.
If Trump is looking at the Jumbotron, it's obscured by his head.
It's eclipsed by his head.
Right?
And it appears to be the case.
I mean, that's how it lines up.
I mean, That's why the ballistic analysis is so pivotal.
If he's glancing at the Jumbotron, we've got a shooter off to the right.
If he's not, it's Crooks who gets the shot.
I can't tell you definitively yet.
I can't.
I don't know.
I know the guy downrange in the black pants and white shirts taking one in the hip.
I see that.
I see that happen.
So I know Crooks is taking shots.
Now the question is, if he is glancing at the Jumbotron, where might there be a shooter?
Well, what's right behind the Jumbotron?
Uh, yeah.
So let's take a look at this next video and see what do we think of this now that what we're looking for is any type of movement.
Okay.
Any type of movement, any type of difference in density, shading, anything that would indicate that this is something other than something stationary or shadow or something like that.
Let's take a look.
Hold that chart.
That chart's a couple of months old.
And if you want to really see something that's sad, take a look at what happened.
Hold that chart.
That chart's a couple of months old.
And if you want to really see something that's sad, take a look at what happened.
I got another one.
I've got another one.
Alright.
It gets worse.
For people who didn't see it, it's a video of the water tower which is not in focus.
Obviously the water tower was not the intended target of whoever took the video.
And there appears to be a shadow from the point of view of us viewers on the right of the object sticking off the top of the tower, which is, I don't know, an event of some kind?
Maybe?
It's not.
It's actually an access hatch.
So in order to get to the top of the water tower, there's actually a tube up the middle.
The water tower is like a donut, and there's a hollow tube up the middle with a ladder, and then a hatch up at the top, or a door, depending on the design, and you can get on top.
There's also a ladder around the back.
There's like a spiraling ladder on the backside, but you can't see from this vantage point.
But it sure looks like maybe there's a squirrel or something up there.
Maybe it's a moth.
I don't know.
Hard to tell.
You know, I don't know what we're seeing.
All right.
So this next footage is from another eyewitness who's sitting in the bleachers behind Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is right in front of these people, a little off to the left.
And her attention is called somewhere else.
And she's distracted.
I want you to listen to what she says and look at where she looks and see if this is consistent with any of the other stuff that we've heard from any other eyewitnesses.
Let's see what's going on here.
Where are they running to?
Thank you, Trump!
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is that a person?
I don't know, but we kind of started this with an eyewitness telling us they just killed the gentleman in the water tower, right?
That's kind of how we started all this out, right?
They said, the lady in the red shirt said they shot the guy in the water tower.
That's, I think that's what she said, right?
Let's play that.
Yeah, well, okay.
So, again, a lot of people are listening and not watching.
So let me just describe.
Maybe that's why they don't want to have a press conference, Brett.
Yeah.
Well, okay.
So, again, a lot of people are listening and not watching.
So, let me just describe.
Again, we have another video in which you have the same anomalous, dark, seemingly moving object next to the vent or the whatever it is, the access port on the top of the water tower.
There are many frames of that video in which I could easily believe you're just looking at a shadow on the far side of that thing that sticks up because the sun's on the other side.
And then there are other frames in which it actually now looks like there's movement that's completely inconsistent with a shadow.
So I don't know what to make of it, but I believe it.
I believe there's something to ask about for sure.
I do wonder, you know, obviously if what we're looking at is a multiple A multiple sniper operation.
There's lots of elements of it that were not successful.
So errors presumably are all over the place.
One error would appear to be that the person at the top of this white water tower would have been better off dressed in white than black.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
Maybe on the way to the water tower they would have been better off dressed in something dark that would obscure them and then on the water tower.
I don't know.
But I do see enough reason to think that there's something on top of that water tower that I find the lack of a press conference about how that water tower was covered conspicuous.
I also can't confirm it but I believe I've seen video of somebody driving past the access road to the water tower the day after and that road is blocked off now where it is yeah yeah now it is but it was not during the thing which you know had there been somebody on the water tower there might well be evidence near the water tower what's more uh if somebody was shot on the water tower there'd be a lot of evidence potentially and
It does raise questions about why we just don't simply know more about what way that water tower was or was not involved in the day's events.
It seems like an obvious set of questions.
I agree with you.
And I think that again, we're now looking at the possibility that the president was not shot by Thomas Crooks.
And it introduces the possibility that the person who actually shot the president is unknown.
And if that's the case, well, what are we talking about here?
Are we talking about another incel?
Are we talking about a foreign national?
Are we, you know, was this an Iranian hit squad?
I mean, I have no idea.
But when the president last night said, if I hadn't turned my head, I'd be dead.
Man, he's glancing at that jumbotron.
I don't know who put together that wireframe model that we've all seen, but I would point out that the footage that you've compiled here and what the president says as he's speaking at this rally suggests that he's pointing at the red arrow on the chart.
The chart is now famous.
So you could probably take that wireframe model and calibrate it pretty darn exactly.
If he's pointing at that red arrow at the moment he says that he is, then that will allow you to know exactly where his ear would have been lined up and it doesn't appear to be consistent with Crook's location.
That's why I'm so eager to work with some of these 3D modeling experts that are out there who are posting phenomenal 3D models, but they're wrong.
So I want to get them lined up with this stuff so that we can say, is it possible?
Could you take a shot from the top of the water tower and miss the jumbotron?
We need to see that in a 3D modeling system.
I don't have those skills.
Right?
I worked with ESRI 35 years ago to put this thing together.
I'm not a 3D modeling expert.
I'm pretty good at cartography.
I'm pretty good on Google Earth.
But, you know, I need somebody with those Maya rendering skills that can do... I don't know how to do that stuff.
And if we could, dude, we'd blow this thing out of the water.
This is the method.
This is how I did it in Vegas.
We piece it together.
Now, We're going to get more evidence.
People are going to send me more photographic evidence.
More photographic evidence.
This guy got shot.
That guy got shot.
This guy got shot.
That guy got shot.
When we start piecing this together, I will be able to show you where every shot came from and where they went.
But right now, we're six days in.
We're six days in and we've potentially identified the locations of two additional shooters and we've introduced the possibility that the President of the United States was not shot by Thomas Crooks.
I do believe Thomas Crooks got shots off.
Chris Martenson's video has a recording.
He's showing a video clip that's recorded right near the shooter that shows the acoustic signatures different in the first couple shots from the last set of shots.
That's quite compelling.
Dude, it's huge.
And he's looking at the crack thump measurements.
The crack thump measurements are all wrong.
The distance from where that person's recording to the shooter is like 65 yards.
Alright, so I've done the calculations.
He's close and he's on the right track and he's doing a lot of good stuff and I learned a lot watching it.
But he thinks the guy in the black pants and the white shirt is shot with the same round that hits the railing.
Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I think the dime just dropped for me.
And now I know what you're saying about Chris's error, which is that you have got an anomaly because the very presumably low amplitude sonic boom of the round itself passing Trump gets picked up by the microphone, which is effectively right at the same place that Trump is, and gets rebroadcast
By the, uh, by the, the PA system, whereas the report from the gun is traveling directly from the gun to the person shooting the video.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's true.
No, that's all good.
That's all true.
But the bigger issue here is let me see if I can show you.
Yeah.
Um, when we go to this... Let me just scrub to where we need to be.
So when we get to this aspect where the guy in the black pants and the white shirt is shot... Hang on, let me share this with you.
So when the guy in the black pants and the white shirt is shot, the issue here is that he is shot an instant after the railing gets hit.
That means it's not the same shot.
Chris thinks the guy in the black pants and the white shirt and the guy in the American flag and the railing are all getting shot at the same time from crooks.
That's impossible because we see the stuff happening down the line.
The shot that hits the railing is the first shot.
That's what we see at the beginning of the video, right?
So at the beginning of the video, we see it hit the railing, okay?
So when it hits the railing and makes a little puff of smoke, Alright, you see that little puff of smoke off the railing?
That's the first shot!
Boom!
You don't hear any shots before that.
That first shot did not hit the guy in the black pants and the white shirt.
He's still standing there.
He's about to get shot right now.
Second later, a split second later, his shirt rises.
And I didn't figure this out.
It took me a little while to figure out that that was two shots.
That the guy getting hit here is a split second after the corner.
This is very important.
Thank you.
What you're looking for is the delta in time between the puff of smoke on the railing corner and this guy in the black and white getting hit.
Okay?
There's the puff of smoke.
Okay?
There's the puff of smoke.
See him rocking?
Puff of smoke.
And now he gets hit.
Puff of smoke.
Watch this.
There we go.
Sorry.
Puff of smoke.
Puff of smoke.
Watch the puff.
And then he gets hit.
So I do not believe this could possibly explain an anomaly like that, but it is important for all of us who look at evidence like this to realize how heavily processed the images from virtually all cameras are.
So just to take a, again, I'm not saying, I think this could possibly explain what we're looking at, but if you take a standard, you know, if you take a cell phone, a good one, and you point it at the propeller of a plane, It warps, right?
It has a right angle in it because of the way the data is taken off the sensor sequentially so that it's not all at one.
Rolling shutter is what it's called.
Exactly.
So I don't think rolling shutter could possibly be in play here, but the idea, if you were to look at the prop of a propeller plane on an image It tells you something that's physically not true about the propeller.
So, I don't think such a thing could be in play here, but we do have to be aware that this is not silver grains on an emulsion anymore.
This is a hybrid between photons hitting a sensor and what the sensor does with them to make an image out of it.
And I don't know what is done, but I think we have to... So all that being true, you know, that's groovy and everything.
The problem here is that Chris Martenson thinks that this shot is coming from Crooks.
He doesn't realize that it's traversing the back row.
He hasn't looked down the back row.
He doesn't realize that the first shot is not coming from Crooks.
If the first shot hits that back railing corner and creates a puff of smoke, and it knocks the purse out of the lady's hand and all that kind of stuff, and it knocks down the guy in the shorts and everything, and then this guy gets hit.
Then he's hit.
The purse is already out.
The purse is already flown.
This isn't an anomaly in the thing, you know, this is picking it up.
So, a split second later, this guy is hit.
We see them carry him out.
And the net of this is, the part that Chris Martinson is not aware of, is, you know, all this stuff going on down the row.
He doesn't realize the bullet has traversed the back row.
This isn't coming from Crooks.
How could it be coming from Crooks if it's traversing the back row based on the diagrams that we've been looking at?
The red line on the diagram indicates exactly where this would be coming from.
And again, that's not much of a mystery here.
We go back to, you know, I got the diagram with the guy in the black pants and the white shirt here.
I'll share this with everybody just so they can kind of wrap their head around.
So what is he suggesting?
What's going on here?
The first shot is the red line.
It traverses the back row of the bleachers.
Knocks the guy in the white pants white shirt off the bleachers, moves the lady's purse.
We see the kinetic evidence down that back row and it hits the railing.
That shot cannot be from Crooks.
Period.
Period.
You don't like it's in the woods?
You tell me where it's coming from.
You don't think it missed the snipers?
Okay, you tell me where it's coming from.
Did it come from the tent?
Was somebody in the white tent holding a gun ten feet in the air and they shot the gun ten feet in the air down the row of the bleachers?
What the hell would you do that for?
I wouldn't make it.
Why would you do that?
Yeah.
And unfortunately, um, the ballistics, those bullets ended up somewhere.
They sure did.
Presumably buried themselves in the turf there.
All recoverable.
And you would imagine in an event like this, recovering them would be an extremely high priority.
And it would be, I don't want to say a trivial matter, but simple enough to determine whether or not they all came from the gun that was found next to Crook's body.
That would be relatively easy.
And so, you know, chain of evidence is everything here.
If you see the red line and where that's going and you see the line from the water tower towards Trump and where that hits the ground in that corner near the pathway, you see how it touches the ground near the corner right in front of the stands?
There's bullets in the ground there.
Somebody was shooting a trump apparently from that water tower.
If someone was shooting a trump from that water tower there would be rounds in the ground where that red where that yellow arrow was touching the ground.
There would be rounds in the ground and you would imagine that in a case like this this entire area I mean you can just see if you're watching this with the video you can see all you can see the the diameter of the relevant area to the incident of the shooting, right?
We know how big a radius this circle has, that that entire thing is an active crime scene.
It should be a national priority to figure out who is shooting at former and possibly future presidents, that nobody should be rushing to the conclusion that there was ever one shooter, right?
We do have one guy on a roof with a relevant rifle, But it should be a national priority to rule out the possibility that anything else happened here.
That the location that all of the bullets ended up in, they should all be marked.
Everything should be so thoroughly documented and the crime scene should remain secure until effectively every inch of it has been recorded in every conceivably useful way.
And I think, unfortunately, we know for sure that didn't happen.
And the way we know for sure that didn't happen is that we see pressure washing going on on the roof where Crooks was a day or two after.
So if you were trying to be able to resurrect a story of what exactly happened after all of those bullets had been found, the location in which they were found had been carefully recorded, those bullets had been taken to ballistics, all of the things that should happen in a case like this mean that you might then want to go back to that roof and ascertain whether some piece of evidence lines up with what you just found.
And for them to be pressure washing the roof, says that this is not a secure crime scene that they've decided to open and shut case and are moving on and that's disturbing yeah that sounds like you know again a level of incompetence that's hard to imagine but if in fact that they shot somebody who was in the water tower incompetence isn't even a you know now now we're in pure cover-up mode if someone was shot in the water tower
That means everybody on the inside is aware of that.
That means all the Secret Service people, Trump's inner circle, they know there was somebody in the water tower.
That I don't get.
Why would you say Trump's inner circle would know that?
If a police officer or a Secret Service sniper shot a shooter in the water tower, That's not going to make it back to the president in his motorcade.
Sir, we got the, we got a second shooter.
We got him in the water tower.
He's down and dead.
They're going to tell him the real story.
They're going to tell the president the real story.
But I don't, I don't understand this at all.
It seems to me that you have the target of an attempted assassination.
It is possible that.
The incompetence we saw is nothing more than incompetence in which case you would imagine that actual information would make it back to the President or it's possible that the attempt involves something having infiltrated the Secret Service or the Secret Service being involved in some way reminiscent of what seems to have happened with one and probably both of the Kennedys.
So It's not obvious to me at all, given how anomalous the evidence is here, that a piece of evidence like that would necessarily have made it back to Trump and his team.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
I mean, I'll, I'll go either way on that.
I'd be surprised if he didn't know.
Again, I'm assuming if the lady in red with the red shirt, who seems a bit frantic, says they shot the guy in the water tower, if that happened, I tend to believe that aspect of this is going to work its way back to former President Trump.
But then wouldn't he reveal it?
Isn't it in his interest to do so?
That's the part I don't understand.
This is the part that I don't understand why would he want to cover up unless they're still looking for the guys.
So this is what happened with the Vegas shooting.
And the Vegas shooting, he helps cover it up because MBS asks him to.
MBS says, I got this.
I've got this.
And MBS, you need to fill that in.
Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, was the target of the Las Vegas shooting.
He says to Trump, please keep this under wraps.
Just tell everybody it was the white guy in the room.
I've got this.
Five weeks later is the Night of the Long Sword at the Ritz-Carlton, where he hangs Awaleed bin Talal upside down and beats him with Blackwater.
They arrest Bakr bin Laden.
They arrest all the big names in Saudi Arabia.
November 5th, 2017.
All right, so that was the retch.
He asks Trump, keep this quiet.
I'm going to take care of it.
And then Jamal Khashoggi is assassinated on the one year anniversary of the Las Vegas shooting.
Jamal Khashoggi and Ali Bin Talal, the two that planned it and funded it.
Along with Maite Ben-Abdullah and Mohammed bin Nayef and a whole bunch of other characters, Mansoor bin Muqrin.
But the fact that Trump had to keep it quiet so that MBS could get justice.
The idea was covered up.
I'll get the real guys if the real guys think that we think it was the white guy.
Well, I'll get the real guys.
Just give me six weeks and I'll get the real guys.
And he did.
And he got them.
Same thing I think we're doing here.
I think if there are two shooters, three shooters, one of them may have escaped.
The third shooter may have escaped.
And if that's the case, they want every- the FBI and whoever's looking for this guy, wants everyone to think, open and shut case, we got the kid, we're done, hose off the roof, let's get the hell out of here.
And now the guy who was in the forest shooting from the tree?
He thinks he's getting away scot-free.
I think they're covering up the fact that they know there's a third shooter.
They're looking for the third shooter.
We've got, we've got a third shooter on the run that got out of there because you didn't hear this.
And they shot another guy in the woods.
That shot came from the forest as uncomfortable as that is.
That's where the shot came from.
Okay.
I'm struggling with this because I hear.
You know, we didn't cover the roof because of the slope.
And I think that is quite possibly the worst excuse any human being has ever delivered for anything.
Yeah, it's worthless.
I mean, it's beyond worthless.
It's like so absurd at so many levels.
Even, you know, the roof becomes sloped at its peak.
Like this is an excuse delivered by somebody who's literally never been on a roof.
So whatever that is, It does not strike me as a Secret Service that got caught with its pants down now trying to find a shooter that escaped.
This sounds more like...
Some state level something that managed to work every angle of this, right?
I don't know who or why or what but you know, I know it's getting complex and it's not and some information is breaking today.
That's very damning.
I don't want to get into it too much, but it indicates there may have in fact been somebody in the water tower.
And the other thing to notice is if somebody was in the Water Tower from Secret Service, they would have a clear view and a clear shot of a kid on a roof with a rifle.
If you're on the Water Tower, you see the kid on the roof with a rifle, it'll be like, dude, I got a kid on the roof with a rifle.
Yeah, take him out.
Done.
Before he even gets a shot off.
Absolutely.
He'd be done.
So that's not Secret Service on the Water Tower.
We know that.
Or the kid would have been taken out before he got a shot off.
Well, it's not Secret Service doing their job on the Water Tower.
I don't pretend to know anything about it.
If Secret Service were on the Water Tower, they wouldn't be on the top of the Water Tower.
They'd be on the catwalk.
There's a catwalk around the belly of the Water Tower.
They'd be on the catwalk with Binag, there'd be a spotter and a guy with a rifle set up.
Not on the tippy, tippy, tippy top.
That's a little harrowing.
Whoever's on the top, by the way, is in a harness.
Whoever's on the top is wearing a harness and is clipped in.
Meaning, if that guy is shot, he's just going to slump over and die, clipped in and harnessed.
He's not going to tumble off the top.
He's clipped in.
Yep.
How do I know?
How do I know?
Because if I went to the Water Tower with my rifle, I'd be wearing a harness and I'd be clipped in.
Sure.
What do you think?
I'm a circus act?
You clip in.
Once you're clipped in, you're in.
Now if you shoot and kill me, I'm just gonna droop.
I'll still be there.
Yep.
I may not move a lot, but I'll still be there.
In fact, I'm not going to move in at all if you shoot and kill me and I'm clipped in and I'm strapped into the top of that thing.
Once you shoot and kill me, I'm pretty motionless, aren't I?
Pretty motionless, aren't I?
What did the lady say?
The sniper shot and killed the guy in the water tower.
Is she smoking?
Is she high?
Is she tripping?
Is she doing mushrooms?
Where'd she come up with that?
Yeah, I agree.
It's a conspicuous thing and it's very specific that she would think that.
What was I going to ask you?
Oh, yes.
You said that there's evidence that's going to come out about the water tower.
This is not a live broadcast.
It's going to be a couple of days, at least, before it comes out.
Any chance you can talk to me about it?
I'm not that confident of the source.
The source is somebody I don't necessarily trust.
And for me, a big reason how I trust or don't trust people is if you're in investigative journalism and you've been ignoring my work on the Las Vegas shooting, You don't see the helicopters?
You're trying to help cover it up?
I don't get that.
So I don't trust people who talk about the Las Vegas shooting and ignore my work.
In fact, the definition of a limited hangout is ignoring pivotal evidence.
So if you ignore pivotal evidence, At best case, it's confirmation bias.
Best case, it's confirmation bias.
You don't want to see what I have that ruins your hypothesis, right?
That's confirmation bias.
That's the best case.
Yep.
Why would you not want to see evidence that Steven Paddock didn't do it?
Especially if you're Steven Paddock's brother.
Why would Steven Paddock's brother not be reaching out to the only man on earth who's assembled a body of evidence that his brother didn't do it?
Because Steven Paddock's brother is a character.
You don't think there's such a thing as a crisis actor until you realize, why wouldn't this guy want to know that his brother didn't do it?
Especially after what he said in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, which is, if I recall correctly, something like, I sure hope they find a brain tumor in him because this doesn't make any sense.
I have 250-something videos on YouTube about the Las Vegas shooting that show that Steven Paddock thought he was taking people shooting in the desert the next day.
Okay, I've gone out to the desert.
And hence the massive arsenal.
Taking people, shooting in the desert, as you tell the story, with the intent of selling them weapons that they like.
Maybe, right?
Maybe.
But if you're a bunch of Saudi guys, and you got a McLaren, the other guy's got the Lamborghini, the other guy's got the Ferrari, and you're willing to pay $50,000 to go out for the day and shoot a bunch of Tannerite and blow up some watermelons and stuff?
I'm going to take your $50,000.
I'm going to bring 24 guns with me, a whole bunch of ammo, and a hundred pounds of Tannerite.
And for $50,000, I'll show you guys a great time.
You'll be blowing stuff up all over the place.
In the deserts of Nevada?
Oh my God, we'll have a blast.
You'll be laughing your head off.
and he's got three women living he's got three women checked into the room with him that's why he's got a minivan he's got a minivan and a hyundai uh sonata whatever the hell it is the hyundai uh tucson he's got a hyundai tucson and a minivan and he's checked in with three women he thinks he's taking a bunch of high rolling guys to the desert shooting that's why he's got 24 guns in the room a whole bunch of ammo and tannerite and a minivan he's got him three women and four guys
That's seven people.
And they come to the suite at seven o'clock just to meet and greet.
We'll have a cocktail, say hi, show us what we're going to be shooting tomorrow.
Knock, knock.
Hi, you must be Steven.
Salaam Aleichem.
Bang, he's dead.
And these guys take over.
So we'll have to do another show where we get into the Las Vegas shooting and do something on the COVID, what I believe was a cover up.
And I think you'll be fascinated.
Again, to me, it's just about the evidence.
I'm not an insistent guy.
If you guys have better evidence, right?
If you're like, no, no, no, look, look, look, this shot came from here.
This guy, look, look at this guy's hat.
I'm perfectly prepared to be wrong here.
Right?
I'm perfectly prepared to be wrong.
If there's nobody in the water tower, and the lady was hallucinating, and that's just a shadow, nobody in the water tower.
Crooks hit his ear, but the first shot did not come from Crooks.
Not if it went down that row of bleachers.
We've got a second shooter, and the audio from Chris Martinson's thing, I'll be focusing on that tonight on my podcast, on my channel, on my YouTube thing.
Yeah, so for those who haven't seen Chris Martinson's thing, I suggest you do.
We will link it here along with John's work.
But what it does is it analyzes the sound that was recorded during the event and quite convincingly suggests two and possibly more shooters beyond the sniper who took out Crooks.
And you can hear it.
You can just simply hear that you're listening to different weapons and that the signature, the time difference between the sonic booms that pass the microphone from the projectiles themselves and the report from the weapons, it's not consistent with one shooter.
He's done some very important work.
His observations are pivotal.
He's using Audacity, which is the same acoustic analysis software that I use.
And when we line up the cracks and the thumps, we see anomalies that we shouldn't see.
And I don't know, maybe you can set something up where you get both of us on the show at the same time.
I'll show you guys this stuff.
It'll blow your mind.
Basically, what I'm doing is I am like jury-rigging ShotSpotter.
I'm using people's cell phones in different locations to calculate the delay.
And in doing so, I can triangulate where the shots are coming from.
Now, it takes me a little bit of time to do that.
Carnegie Mellon's got software.
I don't know if you know anybody at Carnegie Mellon.
If you do, they've got software that does this.
That we can just load recordings from people's cell phones and it will triangulate and tell us where the shots are coming from.
Carnegie Mellon developed this after the biggest shooting, if you know anybody there.
Let's let's make some phone calls see if we can get it right on that software.
I don't but maybe they will reach out all right, so They've got it.
Otherwise.
I just do with my hand I just have to do spreadsheets, and I'll do the analysis with multiple videos But the idea is if I can get a cell phone camera at four different locations in this venue We got I can tell you where the shots are coming from
Okay but one thing I want to go back to it because I was thinking out loud sounds like you think that I have at least part of this right and it seems to me that it impinges on the analysis that Chris was doing which is your the crack thump analysis that you would traditionally do if you had
a microphone that is picking up both the crack and the thump then you can do a simple comparison of how different in time their arrival is and you can calculate how far away the gun is because the sound moves at the speed of sound and the bullet moves at a faster speed and so it arrived the sonic boom arrives faster however you cannot do that in a straightforward way if you are picking up the sonic boom from the projectile
And you're picking that up through the PA system, whereas you're picking up the report from the weapon directly from the cell phone, because now you're picking these things up at two different positions and you have to correct for that distance, which isn't even a simple matter unless they're all in a line.
So, am I right about that?
Absolutely right about the part where the microphone Is picking up the crack.
So, and again, a lot of people are going to miscalculate based on that.
The microphone that Trump is wearing picks up the lady saying, what are we going to do?
What are we doing?
What are we doing?
Right?
So we hear that.
We hear him say, let me grab my shoe.
His mic is hot because his mic is hot and somebody's filming.
We are, so I'm explaining this.
You're hearing both the crack And the minuscule delay of the acoustic system.
It's got to get picked up from the mic, get to the speakers, and get transmitted.
There is a tiny delay between the actual crack...
and a crack you're going to hear over the PA when it's recorded in front of Trump.
But the other recording that Chris Martinson shares is recorded next to Crooks.
And in the one next to Crooks, some of the shots, we don't hear the crack.
That's because we're not downrange.
We're next to Crooks.
If you're next to Crooks, you don't hear the crack.
You just hear the thump.
The crack is when the bullet passes you, by the way, within 125 feet, Yep.
at the speed of sound.
If the bullet passes you 400 feet away, you don't even hear it.
You won't hear the crack.
If you're within 125 feet, you're gonna hear the crack as it passes you.
But if you're next to the shooter, you just hear the thump.
The bullet's not passing.
You don't hear that.
It just goes boom!
You don't hear the other parts.
Even if you did, even if you did hear the crack, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it because the difference in the speed between the bullet and so the report from the gun and the sonic boom from the bullet, they're going to be concentrated together in space until they've had time to separate.
Well, here's what I'm saying.
If I'm on a shooting line, if I've got my gun here, and I'm getting ready to fire, and you're standing 50 feet away from me, perpendicular from my firing line, you're at 90 degrees.
I'm going to shoot this way, you're standing over there.
When I shoot the gun, you're only going to hear the boom of the gun.
You're not going to hear the crack.
You're only going to hear what we call the thump, because the bullet isn't passing you.
The bullet is 3,000 feet downrange, so it's not going past you.
Yeah, and it's not a huge amplitude.
It's a small object passing through the air.
So it's a sonic boom, but you've got to be reasonably close for it not to decay so much that you can't hear it.
Now, if you're downrange, if you're a hundred yards away from the shooter and he's shooting towards you, That's when you hear the crack is the minute the bullet passes you.
The thump is the actual boom from the gun sound traveling downrange from the shooter.
Yep.
So, those are those those two things.
Now, Chris Martinson makes a couple of miscalculations on the distances and that's what I'll be getting into my show tonight is looking at the crack thump delta at .22 seconds.
What does that indicate the distance is?
And that's what I'll be exploring on my podcast tonight with my, you know, I have a patron thing and I do that kind of deep stuff with them.
So I'll be digging into that.
So you said something that confuses me.
Do we know that President Trump was wearing a lapel mic?
No, it could, you're right.
It could be the podium mic.
It could be the podium mic picking it up.
It's either.
I've been assuming that it's the podium mic picking it up.
It's either one, but the, the notion, hang on.
The notion here is that a microphone on the podium, whether it's his lavalier or the podium mic, is picking up the crack.
You're absolutely right.
And then transmitting it out over the speakers.
So we're hearing the crack twice.
You're absolutely right about that.
Yeah.
And so anyway, it's a confusing analysis to have to do because presumably the podium mic, well, A, there's this factor which I missed when I first started thinking about this.
I heard these These shots, and I thought that has to be very low power because they're so quiet.
But no, the sound system, of course, compresses sound in order that if somebody shouts into a microphone, it doesn't distort.
So the sound system attenuates everything.
But that means that, like, if you take one shot that passes the podium, that shot will have a sonic boom that goes into the podium mic.
It will have a report that the
microphone might pick up but because it's coming from the wrong direction the microphones exclude sound from not the expected direction specifically so that you don't have all kinds of stray noises you know when an airplane flies over the podcast you don't want to hear the airplane you just want to hear the people talking so microphones exclude noise but there's a possibility of three things you would pick up the sonic boom in the podium mic
You would pick up the report of the gun directly if you were holding a cell phone at some third position and you might hear the report of the gun also reported through the microphone.
So that means it could be a very chaotic situation in which you have to isolate these things from each other in order to know which two things to measure the time difference between and you have to know the position of the
podium mic you need to know the position of the speakers that are then broadcasting that will be picked up by the cell phone you need to know the position of the cell phone in order to correct for all of these things in order to infer a shooter location that's why we love Carnegie Mellon's help because doing all this by hand there's a royal pain in the neck So, you're absolutely right.
So, one shot to somebody who's holding up an iPhone in record mode.
One shot can generate four peaks.
The original sonic boom, get the crack.
is also picked up by the microphone and will be broadcast in a split second over the PA.
And then the thump comes down, which may also be picked up by the microphone, which also is about to be rebroadcast by the PA.
So a single crack thump, if picked up by the PA microphones, whether on a lapel or on the podium, is gonna generate an echo.
And that's what Chris Martinson is seeing on the graph, is the echo potentially from the PA.
And now you've got to separate out the echo peaks from the real peaks.
And that's why having the microphone next to the shooter is so pivotal.
It's so key.
So again, he's on to something hot.
I'm going to be working with some of his material, but some of his conclusions, he's a little bit off base.
And that's why I'd love to get with him and show him some of this stuff.
So he understands that the first shot could not have come from Crooks if it hits that railing and clips the guy in the white pants and the white shorts.
I mean, we've seen this evidence.
So clearly there's a, there's a shot coming from another direction as uncomfortable as that is.
Again, I'm going to use ostrich bias.
I'm not going to look at it because it's uncomfortable.
No, I'm going to figure it out.
I think it is our patriotic duty to chase this stuff down, frankly.
I've got to wrap it up.
My puppies are screaming.
I've had them in their dog crate for three hours.
Well, John Cullen, it has been a real pleasure and it has of course been fascinating.
This story is still very much in the early phases and I will imagine that we will have to revisit it soon.
Maybe we'll get together with Chris Martenson and we can do a podcast in which we pool our insights and your skill sets.
And we obviously have to return to the question of H7N9 bird flu and the Las Vegas shootings.
So anyway, we got our work cut out for us, but I look forward to it.
I can't thank you enough for having me on the show.
And if the people watching want to catch up with my work, some of this was on YouTube.
So I have a YouTube channel, but most of that has been the COVID and the Vegas shooting stuff.
You can go to youtube.com forward slash I am John Cohen.
Uh, you can follow me on Twitter at I underscore am am underscore John Cohen.
And if you guys want to support my work, I do this full time.
This is my day job and I don't have sponsors.
I don't sell pillows or nutrients or anything like that.
So if you want to help me do this work, there's really only one way to do that.
That's on Patreon or Subscribestar forward slash I am John Cohen.
And for five bucks a month, you can support my work.
And that's how I make a living, believe it or not.
I make a living exclusively off of Patreon and Subscribestar that allows me to do this type of research with no sponsors at all.
No sponsors.
Well, I want to thank you for doing it.
For those people who are trying to find you on one of those platforms, Cullen is C-U-L-L-E-N.
So, for example, on Twitter, I underscore A-M underscore J-O-H-N C-U-L-L-E-N.
I'm incredibly grateful.
Thank you for having me, and send my best to Heather.
And I'm looking forward to having the conversation with you guys about bird flu, because I think you're going to be stunned when you see some of this.
Awesome.
Well, I'm looking forward to it.
Export Selection