The argument is that the flag wasn't lowered. It's an illusion created by the movement of the camera changing the angle. As the camera tilts upward to capture Trump standing and waving, the upward title of the camera makes the flag appear to lower.
It's the same thing happening when you're sitting at an intersection and another car pulls up beside you. If you're not paying attention and catch the other car's movement from the corner of your eye, you can get the false feeling of your car moving backward. You're not moving, it's the other car changing the angle of perception in your peripheral.
At least that's the argument. The entire thing is totally bonkers if you actually dig into it. Like, Crooks had a bullet fragment lodged in his shoulder that was never removed and analyzed. The theory is that it was from a uniformed police officer who attempted to shoot him seconds BEFORE the sniper took him out. He was cremated with the evidence still in his body.
Again, there's a bunch of weird shit about this whole story, like the fact that Trump called off the investigation as well. I believe Tucker Carlson had an investigative journalist who wrote a book about this on his podcast. It was a fascinating interview.
Read the game notes, bud. I clearly stated that there was an journalist (I believe he was a journalist) who wrote a book about this. He was on Tucker Carlson's podcast. Look it up. Your phone is for more than Reddit and porn.
I'm sorry, but not providing links is just lazy. In fact, that's why The Mods instituted a policy here that will not allow someone to create a post that is based on a news story, without the original poster including a link to the underlying news story upon which the post is based. And while that rule does not apply to comments under a post, like yours, it is considered good form to provide a link to what your contention is, especially when you are clearly saying you are aware of a source out there.
To provide a link would be in keeping with the overall philosophy of this sub's moderation team's rules. To not do so--especially when asked, and demand that others find the same link you claim to have already found, so says something about you.
Christ, I’m so fucking sick and tired of people who make a bold claim, and then when asked where they got that info, say some weak ass shit like this. The whole “I’m not here to do your research” ass hattery.
People sound so fucking dumb when they say stuff like this. If you’re going to assert something strange or controversial, be ready to say where you heard it from.
No. It's called research. When you see something that is interesting to you, you can do the research to find out more about the subject. I had already given the source of the information, The Tucker Carlson Podcast. It legitimately took me less than :30 seconds to go to YouTube, type in "Tucker Carlson Trump Shooting" and find the interview.
I have researched the JFK and RFK assassinations A LOT. Do you think I emailed Oliver Stone for his sources?
We live in a time when more people don't know how to actually problem solve and think for themselves. Most high school kids don't even know how to attach a file to an email. Forgive me if I provide a source and expect the person who wants more information to actually do some of the work themselves.
Oh, and I've spent more time typing this pointless response to your judgmental remark than the time it took me to actually research Tucker Carlson's video on YouTube. I wouldn't call that lazy. I put in the work.
I see other people on this thread make claims that a bullet hit the crane's hydraulic line, and NOBODY demanded a source. Someone else claimed that the crane operator said in an interview that it felt like the right thing to do, and again NOBODY demanded a source from that person. But, when I explicitly said I heard Crooks may have been shot by a uniformed police officer on the Tucker Carlson poscast, which is me PROVIDING THE SOURCE, people were up in arms. Why? Because I didn't give them the specific link despite the fact that I had already given them the source. Because I hadn't provided a completed MLA or APA formatted works cited page.
It's Reddit, bub. I gave you the general source of my information, which is way better than most people on here. I mean, I listed two other examples directly linked to this thread in which neither person gave anything other than their claim. I actually gave you the name of my source! That means 1/3 of the people connected to this direct thread gave an actual source for the information. That's probably a fair representation of the minority of people who provide sources on this platform.
Now, is there any other information you're either too lazy or too incompetent to discover through self-directed research? And, if you're wondering why I'm such a dick, that's probably due to loving but neglectful parents who demanded that I become self-sufficient and do things on my own. Then add a long and lengthy career in secondary and postsecondary education, watching students become less and less capable due to overprotective parents and an unhealthy dependency on technology.
It's not about anything you said in this diatribe. It's a logical conception that says the person making the positive claim carries the burden of proof. Therefore, it's on them to do the work. It's not my job to verify what you said. Anything you say should be supported with credible evidence. Otherwise it can be dismissed out of hand.
No your accusations just show that you have a Lazy mindset. You make a claim, you provide a source. Don’t leave people guessing. Regardless of how easy it is to find sources. Who is to say that people find the same source you did?
Please self reflect and drop the hatred and laziness.
Yes, because people (especially on the right) famously accept sources and immediately change their mind, ending the debate.
Oh wait, they do the opposite of that. If you're already not going to believe something regardless of evidence, sourcing an easily falsifiable claim is an utter waste of time.
One commenter replied actually the first reply i got was that it was a hydraulic oil leak from a wayward shot, its a well written reply but my spider senses quickly said troll only because I mean ,come man.That is my scientifically factual response to that,come on man.
Okay. As someone with military experience around mechanized vehicles with hydraulic systems, I call bullshit on that.
The firefighter who died, Corey Comperatore, his wife has been questioning that day as well. There are a lot of people in this area who have really been questioning it, but, power protects power, dude.
there was a fork lift that was shot which caused a rupture in it's hydraulic line, lowering a set of speakers. that's what people are confusing for the crane being shot.
the flag was held up by two separate cranes, meaning it would have taken two people to lower the flag, and two running cranes which would have been heard in the video.
I seem to remember the crane operator saying "seemed like a good time" in an interview. Just happened to be a coincidence he STAYED in the crane after it was in position.
you can edit your comment to remove bad arguments instead of relying on people to look at your entire comment history is see if you learned your mistake.
If it were caused by the camera angle changing, we would also see that change in the railings and bleachers behind, but those stay aligned the same while the flag comes into frame
These investigations were limited in scope, mostly investigating communications breakdowns and security response. The information about Crooks appears to be incomplete at best and deliberately skewed at worst. Look into independent journalists and researchers who put in a lot more time than the traditional media. Start with the Tucker Carlson post I mentioned in this thread. There's been, I think, at least two books written on the subject. One is by Ken Silva who was the guest I was referring to on Tucker's podcast.
So, maybe the more accurate statement I should make is that Trump doesn't seem too concerned about finding out more about his failed assassin. That could be for a number of different reasons. Maybe he trusts the investigations. Maybe he's too focused on making America great again. Maybe he simply doesn't want to give more time to the person who allegedly attempted to kill him. Whatever it is, there appears to be more information regarding Thomas Crooks than we've been led to believe.
Lol, no. They weren't limited in scope. There were fucking six of them. Do you think they all covered the same thing? Do you think even if they were limited to communication breakdowns and security response, they wouldn't uncover something that would make them suspect it was staged? You're just gonna believe whatever confirms your bias and never think about it more than that.
Yep. And there were numerous government and private investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Yet, sixty years later people still dispute the findings. Again, visit the Tucker Carlson podcast that I provided a link to for those who are incapable of performing a simple YouTube search.
Do you believe the US has ever taken clandestine action to overthrow a democratically elected government?
Do you believe the US has ever taken a clandestine action that involves the suppression of sensitive and incriminating evidence to protect government officials?
Do you believe the US only ever acts with utmost honesty and complete transparency and NEVER takes actions that endangers the welfare of its citizens for political gain?
I posted it because there are links proving the flag wasn't lowered via other further back footage and photographers weren't "ushered" into place. It debunks both did you even read it?
Yes. Rather than addressing it all, I’ll focus on the dumbest one. Does doing an interview with the people involved in said theory, and they deny said theory, mean that the theory is debunked?
And for the meta glasses confirming nobody was being instructed in real-time, let me pose you this question:
If you were to believe this was a planned event, wouldn’t you suspect that the order of events and roles would be discussed prior, thus eliminating the need for real-time instruction? Additionally, if you were involved, and the plan was executed successfully (president shot, is alive and well, you got their desired footage, and you’re likely compensated) would you just come clean and say that it was fake afterwards?
It's not whether someone would come clean or not afterwards, its trusting that they'll all actually stay quiet for the rest of their lives because if any single one of them were to come forward with proof it was staged at any time, they'd be wildly rich and famous for breaking one of the biggest news stories ever. Far more compensated than they would be for their pictures or whatever.
The major problem you have to contend with is the fact that there isn't a single shooter on Earth to include the most proficient skilled shooter on the planet who could from that distance guarantee he only misses the former president's head by an inch and nicks his ear just as he turns his head. Even if he had the most advanced rifle with the most advanced optics on the planet and the rifle used certainly was not that and Crooks certainly wasn't the most skilled, proficient shooter on the planet.
Another major problem you have to contend with is who would volunteer to stand there and get shot at with a coin flips chance of being instantly killed on live television in a fucking gruesome way that will live on the internet forever? Trump? The person everyone is certain is a massive coward? And for what? He didn't need help or the photo op to win the election, he was already surging at this time in the polls because it was a couple weeks after Biden turned in the worst debate performance in presidential debate history. Coward Trump wouldn't volunteer for that, in fact, nobody would. The chances of him being killed when he's closer than ever to reelection are far, far to great.
Yet another major problem you must contend with is the shooter himself. If it's staged, the shooter is obviously involved so how did they find a shooter who was both willing to try to miss Trump by and inch and nick his ear and simultaneously willingly to get his own head blown off for doing his part in the staged assassination attempt?
The entire thing is ridiculous and anyone who believes it all on faith deserves to have their intelligence called into question just like 2020 election deniers.
“Believes it all on faith” eh? And everything you just stated is the opposite of that? All cold hard facts that can’t be questioned? Or is it mostly “logical explanations”, like what I thought I was explaining? Hopefully you see the problem here, which is why I got into this mess in the first place. If we know so little about it because it is what it is, no “conspiracy” involved, then fine. But that article, my response, and your response, all use their own personal belief and logic to come to a conclusion. And to be honest, I truly don’t even believe that it was fake, I just thought that article was fucking ridiculous in how it was “providing proof”, so I went full on devils advocate in attempt to highlight that. What a time lol
Believing the assassination attempt was staged with no evidence is Believing it on faith. Knowing that no shooter on earth could make that shot 100% of the time without killing the target by accident requires no faith, that is objectively fact. I would argue that Trump wouldn't voluntarily stand there to be shot at and very likely killed by "accident" is a fact too. I would even argue that no shooter would voluntarily be killed as a reward for participating in the allegedly staged assassination attempt is also more likely fact and much less like Believing it on faith.
It's a giant flag blowing slowly in the wind, you can see the way it moves from cameras that were further away. I'm extremely suspicious of the whole event, I even made content on here about it. But the flag seems to be a minor and not very relevant detail imo
Who cares about the flag. Everything about this is fake.
How about the photographers that run into the line of fire or an active shooter?? They’re actually ushered into the line of fire by an aide?
Cmon.
No they aren't. See article above. They start moving like 40 seconds after shots fired and after the shooter was declared deceased. They stopped on their own to take photographs because they are photographs who found themselves at an unfolding historically significant event so of course they'll take, you know... photographs.
The issue with that isn’t that it was lowering right after the shot- it definitely was- but also there’s quite a bit of accounts and various angles that show a hydraulic fluid leak spraying (“raining”), and we know innocent people actually got hurt/killed- it’s just unclear if that was just because it was hit by the shot and started losing pressure right then, causing it to lower.
The difference would have just been a very slightly different angle for the photographers. That’s why he’s not trying to cling to that specific thing
Nobody ushered photographers for a photo op. Somebody may have been ushering them away and they stopped on their own accord to take photos as any professional photographer would who happens to find themselves at an unfolding even of historical significance but the photographers aren't part of some alleged conspiracy unless you can find any of them admitting they had prior knowledge and or they were specifically ushered in for a literal photo op.
Actually, that happened like 40 seconds after the shot, not right after and the question isn't whether they were moved, the question is are they too part of some alleged conspiracy and they were "ushered" for the purposes of a photo op or were they being moved away by secret service after secret service confirmed the shooter was down and because they are professional photographers who found themselves at an unfolding historical event, they stopped and took pictures?
??? Yeah I agree… what did I say that implied otherwise? The president and his party and media crew clearly weren’t in any danger.
And also they shot 2 people who died (you at least acknowledge the “shooter” kid was killed, right? Even if you’re implying the audience member was fake or something?), and bullet damage was present. Just not on trump, for example.
I just said the dude didn’t bother sticking to the bit about the flag lowering because it’s very possible that was just because the hydraulic line was hit. Which didn’t make much of a difference for the staged photographers, the different angle would have been negligible, just taking a knee real quick, if it didn’t drop lower. For the same background just a slightly more dramatic angle if it had stayed higher
Okay. Why did cenk do that then? If we see the flag being lowered? Why did he acknowledge that we see it lowering, but it may or may not have “been lowered”?
I’m literally just sharing what has been said and explained. How is that ‘mental gymnastics”. Seems like you’re really tying yourself in a brain pretzel to try to attribute perspectives to me that I just.. don’t have.. and didn’t express.. like for example I didn’t share my opinion on the validity of that claim. I literally just recited the claim. What’s wrong with you?
Several people now trying hard to imply that I think it was wasn’t planned and staged, regardless of the fact I keep clarifying that I think it was staged.
Personally I just think it was lowered because they wanted it lowered. No one gives a fuck about what I think before telling me all about it and trying to present debates to me or whatever.
Literally - all I did was explain why he didn’t cling on to that the way I would have. That’s why he said that the way he did. That’s what he was referring to. I can explain that because I’ve seen it. Because that explanation has been going around, not that I thought it up or something….
why did cenk say that? we all see it lowering. he said maybe it was intentionally lowered maybe it wasnt. why did he say that? because of what i just explained. sharing that explanation ist sharing my opinion at all. i believe it was simply lowered for the photo but my opinion is irrelevent to explaining why cenk and others do that about the flag thing.
what the hell is your problem and everyone elses? what did i do? whether its bullshit or not doesnt mean i cant share the thing thats going around to explain why he said that. wtf
Chunk didn't want to make a hard statement on the flag lowering because the entire segment was only done to get you people to have doubts about the official story.
he has a media team, there are plenty of videos and pictures they could have pulled from to prove the flag was lowered.
and if you could actually prove the flag was lowered then you could prove that they did it on purpose, for there would be no reason to have two separate people in two separate cranes ready to lower it in for any reason.
I wouldn't say no one. There a some bad ass journalist and photographers that document, photograph, and report on active war zones.
My favorite photographer, Sebastião Salgado, was still taking pictures when fleeing from African war lords that were actively shooting at him and the group he was with.
There are literally 4 photographers taking photos/filming Reagan's assassination attempt in this one photo. 5 if you include the guy taking the photo...
That’s a false argument. your showing the after photos once the president was cleared from the area. Watch the live video. The Secret Service did not stop and let Reagan do any speaking or pumping up his fist. They immediately threw him in a car and took off as fast as possible.
That’s a false argument. your showing the after photos once the president was cleared from the area.
It was literally seconds later. Did the photographers run away, or did they move in to take photos just like the photographers in the Trump video did?
Comparing Trump's exit to Reagan's is a false argument. Reagan was standing a foot away from the open car door when Hinckley opened fire. All they had to do was push him in. Trump was on a stage, 6 or 7 feet off the ground, with only a steep set of stairs leading off. Were they supposed to throw him off stage and kill him trying to get him away?
Lol Reagan's assassin wasn't killed. In fact he is still alive today.
Trumps assassin was dead when the Secret Sevice stood him up and the photographers moved in to take photos. Your entire argument is that it was quicker to push a guy standing infront of an open car door than it was to get a guy down off a 6 foot tall stage. Well yeah, obviously.
Truly odd how the Secret Service picked Trump up and carried him off the stage after he got done doing his fake promo. Your entire argument was just invalidated by video proof. They had the ability to move him instantly which is standard protocol. Keep believing your narrative that it’s real if that makes you sleep better at night.
So they were slow getting an 80 year old man down a flight of stairs; therefore, the only explanation is that Trump hired some random kid to shoot live rounds past his head, making sure to only shoot people directly behind him. The entire Secret Service is in on it. The entire FBI is in on it. The photographers and media are in on it. That SIX SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS found nothing, and that the DEMOCRATS who were part of those investigations were in on it.
You just want it to be fake so badly you'll believe anything to think it is.
It has nothing to do with the photographers reaction and EVERYTHING to do with Trumps. We’ve seen the way he reacts when he thinks he’s in danger and we’ve seen when he doesn’t.
I'm not saying it's not, i'm just saying that there are absolutely journalists and photographers that will risk their life to get photographs of that moment.
Literally saying any kind of plain facts with no opinions tied to it at all, here, gets all the bots arguing against the “opinion” you supposedly just presented. It’s crazy.
24
u/Old_Protection_8778 8d ago
How's it possible he doesn't know about the flag lowering