Audio Analysis of Trump Assassination Attempt Reveals Multiple Shooters? \ stacker news ~conspiracy

Audio Analysis of Trump Assassination Attempt Reveals Multiple Shooters?youtu.be/LouUbMYb7Bc

1127 sats \ 23 comments \ @k00b 20 Jul conspiracy

I remember watching Chris Martenson videos from a long time ago. Anyone into independent libertarian commentary has probably run into his videos on YouTube at some point. A long long time ago I recall watching some of his stuff on peak oil.

Anyway, as @OneOneSeven shared here, he's started (as most of us have) with the assumption that the July 13th shooting might not be getting told straight. FWIW I'm not sure it is, but I'm also not sure it isn't. In this video he's focusing on the audio from the event which is probably where we'll find the most compelling evidence for an alternative take on the events. Even CNN has reported on forensic analysis showing as many three weapons were fired:

Forensic analysis suggests that as many as three weapons were fired at the rally (including, apparently, those fired as part of the response by law enforcement officials). The first three shots were consistent with alleged weapon A, the next five were consistent with alleged weapon B, and the final “acoustic impulse” was emitted by a possible weapon C, per audio analysis by Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, Senior Professional Research Associate at the same institution.

Being the ~conspiracy territory, I don't have to tell you take your grain of salt. Presuming only one weapon was fired by law enforcement, that leaves another shooter aside from the lone gunman, Crooks. The shots do have very distinct sounds, especially when you spend a lot of time listening to them. Fun video and I'm looking forward to the rest of his series.

view all related items

186 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 22 Jul

@k00b, I've been thinking about this audio analysis. Its great but a few things I think he misses or at least didn't address.

First, when objects like a crowd move or the microphone moves (phone mics) this can affect the sound. Sound bounces off of bodies and objects. Human bodies absorb sound. If you do a sound check for a band with an empty room you get different results when the room is full. After the first shot a lot of people move, and drop to the ground. Maybe its far fetched but it seems to me this would have an effect on the sound of the shots. Some of the video is shot from mobile phones and these sources are likely even more inconsistent than a stationary mic.

Second, to my knowledge we have no footage of Crooks firing his weapon. It is possible that he moved between the shots. I admit this is less likely but here's what I'm wondering. After the first 3 shots what if he stood up for the rapid fire rounds? I would like to hear a ballistics expert talk about this as well as an audio engineer.

Third, what if the second round of fire was from law enforcement near the shooter returning fire?

Fourth, what if the last volley of shots were not directed at Trump but were directed at another target in defense? I've not seen an accounting of each shot yet. It is odd to me that with all those shots no Secret Service were hit. After Trump fell was he out of the view of crooks? Where was he aiming at that point? Was anyone hit in the second volley?

I'll just say, I'm not ready to believe there were more than one assassin. There were multiple shooters. though. At least two. Crooks and one counter sniper.

76 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 22 Jul

The FBI came out the next day and said two law enforcement officers fired on Crooks (imo in response to this video). It didn't get much attention but that's what they claimed.

Martenson has also acknowledged that the phone microphone was not stationary and that it might affect analysis.

I agree in general though that Martenson jumps to confident conclusions way too fast even if he's willing to change his mind just as fast. He was super confident about the ladder in his first video which served as a significant reminder for me that he shares his thoughts in an unscientific way.

Still, I think audio forensics, absent better video, is going to be the best source of evidence for an unofficial, alternative investigation.

121 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 22 Jul

As a kid I was always fascinated by things from the edge. I listened to Art Bell's show "Coast to Coast AM" many nights as I went to sleep. I was really into conspiracy theories as I've talked about on SN. Over the years as I did more reading and studying I learned that the things that governments and companies admit to doing, things that are exposed and proven are often so crazy few believe them. Not to mention that these stories are often buried and ignored in the history we are taught in schools(lies of omission). That led me to kinda pump the brakes on my conspiracy theory interest.

Then I started learning about how the state will use these theories to some of the less credible people that push them to discredit legitimate questions. I think our curiosity and excitement about finding something out or exposing something before others can cloud our judgement.

I'm not saying trust authority. I'm saying the opposite. Many say they don't trust authority but they trust some person online that has a lot to gain from grabbing attention with wild speculation. If one is skeptical of the state they should also have that same level of skepticism from companies and individuals with something to gain from their stories and theories.

Its a complex world and many will be seeking to profit off of these crazy events. What we know the state does and can prove they have done in the past is far more than enough to never trust them. We don't need to make stuff up.

Not suggesting this guy is making stuff up. This was the first time I had encountered him.

121 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 22 Jul

I hear you. I consider myself a conspiracy spectator. I know I'll never answer these questions, but I find watching others attempt to answer them fascinating. I don't believe conspiracy theories generically, but I don't believe official theories generically either. I believe what's independently verifiable and rarely is anything at this scale independently verifiable.

The kneejerk for anti-conspiracy theorists is that we need to shelter weak minds from conspiracies, including our own minds sometimes. I have less of this impulse than many do.

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 22 Jul

Pretty much in the same place you are.

In many ways we are much better off today because we do have more voices and points of view that anyone can access.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 22 Jul

100%

166 sats \ 1 reply \ @398ja 20 Jul

It's hard to believe that the roof wasn't secured. It's even harder to believe that Crooks was so confident about being able to climb there unnoticed, and, alone, outsmart the security of a former US president. It takes either a lot of balls, or an equal amount of stupidity.

Sorry, I don't buy this, and have no problem entertaining the idea of at least two shooters!

113 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 20 Jul

The simplest conspiracy is to recruit a single shooter from crazytown and just make sure he succeeds by intentionally degrading the response. That has the most plausible deniability. And it conveniently fits into gun control narratives "gotta keep the crazies away from the guns!"

Why on earth would you make it look like a complex op, the sort of thing a random crazy person wouldn't do? If Trump hadn't turned his head at just the right moment he'd be dead. So you only needed one shooter anyway.

134 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 20 Jul

Chris Martensen is great. Followed him on Twitter for a long time and used to listen to his interviews on Macrovoices.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 20 Jul

https://x.com/chrismartenson

113 sats \ 0 replies \ @OneOneSeven 20 Jul

Looking forward to more audio analysis. Watching his latest episode now. Feels like 2020 again. I just looked through my history to find the first Chris Martenson video I watched, January 27th, 2020 :

eesh

44 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 20 Jul

This is very interesting. There were other things that make this story so suspicious. The water tower not being in pictures, stocks....

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 21 Jul

That's pretty wild.

67 sats \ 4 replies \ @anon 20 Jul

The idea that it was a conspiracy of multiple shooters is absurd.

Why would you use more than one shooter who could get caught when one well trained shooter should be able to make the shot? (modulo really bad luck, luck Trump turning his head at exactly the right time...)
How did multiple shooters all miss?

This kind of absurd conspiracy theory is the type of thing that entities like the CIA may very well be seeding in popular discourse to make conspiracy theorists look like idiots.

I wish anon's could downzap, or I'd downzap this post 10,000sats.

24 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 20 Jul

And remember it goes both ways. Something like 1/3 of democrats believe Trump staged the shooting.

67 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 20 Jul

...which is honestly an even more absurd conspiracy theory than multiple shooters. The democrats should be ashamed of themselves. They're the ones harping about disinformation.

It was clearly real bullets, quite a few of them. One even hit a forklift hydraulic hose, causing hydraulic fluid to spray out on camera. Trump would not have risked his life to stage a shooting like that. It makes zero sense.

It's plausible this is a conspiracy to kill Trump. But not plausible it's a conspiracy to make Trump more liked.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 20 Jul

one idiot from India said Trump wasn't hit by a bullet but scraped himself when he went down

another reason to dismantle H1B work visa

296 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 20 Jul

I don't think the things you call absurd are that absurd but I'm not saying it's what happened either.

Why would you use more than one shooter who could get caught when one well trained shooter should be able to make the shot? (modulo really bad luck, luck Trump turning his head at exactly the right time...)

The thinking goes: if the government employs assassins to do ops like this, they don't want them getting killed or caught. Yet if the assassin escapes, the public will demand they are found. So, they provide a fall guy, someone that can be killed or caught and solely blamed for the assassination, someone with no real connections to or knowledge of the op/other assassin.

If the government does employ assassins to kill heads of state (maybe it's absurd to think they do?), yet it's absurd to employ patsies, then what's reasonable? Is it reasonable to get your assassins killed, caught, or have the public believe a presidential assassin is on the loose for eternity?

There are probably better ways to sneakily kill an old guy than shooting him, but patsies are not "absurd." Unless you believe the official stories of the JFK and RFK assassinations, both are thought to involve patsies (RFK's has incontrovertible evidence of a patsy imo, but I am also an absurd idiot by your standards anon).

How did multiple shooters all miss?

The thinking goes: it's one shooter, and one patsy. So, one shooter missed and the patsy did their job. I don't think it's "absurd" to think people make mistakes doing their jobs.

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @cristaiji 20 Jul

It seems very plausible to me that there might have been two shooters.

Any assassination op will have the odds of success increased with more than one shooter especially as one could be used as misdirection leaving the other with a greater chance of success.

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fabs 20 Jul

by a possible weapon C.

I think y'all are reading WAY too much into this.

13 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 20 Jul

Let the fun begin. I have also heard talk about the NYT photo catching the bullet vapor trail before it hit Trump. The trajectory is supposedly contrary to what would have been the angle if fired from the roof.

54 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 20 Jul

I’m saying there was a second spitter: Roger McDowell

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 20 Jul

Classic!