No Rush to Judgement

Let's Not Fall Into A Multiple of Traps.

We cannot trust anything we are told with regard to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Any definite and confident conclusions that are reached or accepted by people will very likely have more to do with tribal affiliations than the piecing together of evidence that points in a certain direction. Although, these days, it is very difficult to trust the evidence. The FBI are investigating which is not a cause for reassurance that the truth will be arrived at, ever, nor will any Secret Service investigation have any credibility.

However, as sceptics that adhere to reason and rational likelihoods, we can narrow down the possibilities of what the actual genuine circumstances were of that frustrated attempt, illuminated by the previous similar events.

The first area of exploration is the shooter’s position. The Secret Service have protocols that ensure there are no roofs left unwatched and definitely no line of sight positions available to any would-be assassin. As an area with a lot of low-lying buildings, these should have been attended with protection officers and been constantly scoured. The fact that the assumed shooter was able to clamber up there and fire several shots is a blatant breach of security protocol that can be either incompetence or intentioned. It is hard to believe the SS are that incompetent; people that train on these points regularly do not make these mistakes. As the Soviets commented after the Kennedy assassination, these things ‘are not possible’ unless security services are stood down.

The suspicion that the security services, or elements of it, have allowed this to happen are given further weight by the BBC report, aired quickly after the gunfire, in which an ostensibly Trump supporting attendee told the BBC reporter that he and others had seen the alleged assassin with the rifle climb onto the roof and take up his position. Despite, he claims, him and others notifying the police and pointing it out to the SS, no one did anything and he helplessly watched as the man on the sloping roof pulled the trigger multiple times.

This testimony supports the incompetence/intentional theory about the SS. However, we have been fooled before and it is wise to proceed with caution. During 9/11, some very suspicious, articulate and untraumatised ‘witnesses’ gave fulsome evidence to attending TV cameras that two jumbo jets had crashed into the Twin Towers - a fact we now know to be false. Behind them, in camera shot, dark suited, sunglass sporting men walked to and fro behind them, as if they were monitoring them. Were these background figures intelligence agents, handlers, making sure that the verbal evidence recorded fitted with the narrative? Knowing what we know now about the complete falsity of the information broadcast that day after the first couple of hours, then we cannot rule that out. Therefore, nor can we assume that all eye witnesses are acting in good faith.

Why would he or any eye witness lie? There could be several reasons, but one may be that establishing one shooter from one location stops us from looking for other shooters from multiple locations. Often, political assassinations have had more than one would-be assassin: more assassins means less chance of failure, and designating one as a patsy, allows for an open and shut investigation. It could be that Thomas Matthew Crooks was a patsy, drawing the attention from other suspects. Lee Harvey Oswald’s designation as prime suspect and subsequently the killer of Kennedy halted investigations into testimonies given by witnesses citing a range of shooters in different positions.

It is always suspicious when a suspect is named quickly. A random person, dead on a rooftop - you might think there’s quite a few obstacles to a quick identification, unless he has his driving licence on him, which, would be…convenient. This, albeit possibly only a coincidence at the moment, suggests an investigation that someone wants to shut down quickly. Lone Wolf assassinations (nearly always) are a myth created by intelligence agencies and Hollywood to cover-up governmental, extra-judicial murders and killings by powerful interests or persons. It is extremely difficult to pull off an assassination without help, and it would take a very naive person to believe they could get away with it. A certain martyrdom is entailed, and few, very few, are martyrs.

The age of the identified assailant raises another question. A twenty year old is extremely young to be that radical (it does happen, but it’s still young). It is a young age to be such a good shot; he managed to get close to Trump’s head from over a hundred metres away; he managed to take into account windspeed over that distance, admittedly low, about 2 to 7 km, possibly a bit higher; and he managed to shoot through the total internal reflection - when hot air creates waves and sometimes mirages; it was 32C in Butler that day. It is quite a feat by a 20 year old. It suggests he’s either a gun enthusiast with some expertise or that he has had some training. If he’s had training, then who gave it to him and for what reason? Is he a trained assassin who was activated on that day? By whom? And for what reason, if not to kill Trump?

As mentioned above, a dead shooter answers no questions. This is useful if it’s a conspiracy. However, a dead shooter can be revealing in itself - executing the would-be assailant may have been part of the plan. The SS, dithering about a man on a rooftop for several minutes, possibly, suddenly are able to shoot a man lying flat out on a roof, in the head, with a windshield on his gun. No gun battle, no multiple bullet holes as panicked agents try to eliminate the threat by just hitting something - the lack of blood on the roof suggests a minimal amount of violence was used to nullify the shooter, all of this is suspicious. Could there have been another shooter primed to end the life of Crooks once he fired those shots at Trump, if it was even him that fired them? Lee Oswald’s very existence struck terror into those involved in the Kennedy killing until his execution in a Dallas Police Department garage removed the prospect of his testimony. If there was at least one other gunman for Crooks murder, then they would be dressed as an official and would be part of a conspiracy.

None of this invalidates the proposition that one man with a violent hatred of Trump tried to kill him on a day when the SS either happened to be incompetent or had their incompetence exposed, but each of these questions need to be answered satisfactorily. As do others. Was it Trump’s party political enemies? Was it the globalists? Was it jealous actors in his own party? Was it staged by Trump or those close to him? Usually, something this big is a coalition of interests, yet who they are exactly will remain a mystery, probably.

If we want the Truth, we must forestall ourselves from any rush to judgement and continue to ask questions as a more substantial narrative evolves. What is definitely for sure, I’d wager, it will not be a simple story.

We have now moved to a paid subscription model for the Common Knowledge Blog. Most of the posts will remain free, but we are hoping that people who share the values of a free, pro-human future will support us. All the money we receive goes to our campaign for that free, human future. You can contribute by a paid subscription to this substack of £10 a month or a £100 annual membership.

KEEP IN TOUCH.

Email: commonknowledgeedinburgh@tutanota.com

Follow us on X @wercomknowledge

Watch our previous meetings on YouTube - @CommonknowledgeEdinburgh

On Rumble - Common Knowledge Edinburgh

On Odysee - Common Knowledge Edinburgh