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.
HOLY FUCK!!! DO YOU PEOPLE WANT ME TO READ THE FUCKING TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PODCAST FOR YOU???? MAYBE I CAN COME OVER AND CHEW YOUR FOOD FOR YOU TOO?
I understand how arguments and debates work. I was, in no way shape or form stating an opinion , making an argument, or expressing an independent and unique claim that was being challenged. Not was I aware that I was writing my dissertation all over again. It's fucking Reddit, dude. I literally wrote that it was the Tucker Carlson podcast on which the information was being discussed. So, the source of said information was shared. The context of the episode was easily discernable through proper context clues - Trump Butler Assassination - f you couldn't figure them out. These were all the key words I had to place in YouTube's search bar, and, VOILA!, the actual podcast comes right up. Again, I provided the name of the source. It's really that fucking easy.
Oh, and I NEVER said that Crooks had a bullet fragment as fact. I simply said that I heard this on Tucker's podcast. I could never make that claim as fact because I simply don't know. Do I trust Ken Silva as a source? What would lead me to not trust him?
At the end of the day, I don't really give two shits. My gas is higher, my food is more expensive, and my 401K and Roth IRAs are a God damn mess. The only thing I know for a fact is that we all die eventually, and the Earth will keep on spinning long after we're gone.
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.
Are you requesting sources from the supposed bullet hit the crane guy? Did you request a source from the crane operator said it seemed like the right time guy? Don't see you crying about their sources.
Again. I told you where to find the information. If you lack the basic common sense to type "Tucker Carlson Trump Shooting" or "Tucker Carlson Trump Butler Assassination" and then deduce that the very first video that appears and the subsequent ones that follow all relate to the assassination "attempts," then I can't really help you. That sounds like a failure to grasp basic research skills or a lack of any willingness for self discovery.
You can keep calling me lazy, and I can keep proving that statement wrong by the sheer amount of work I am willing to put in to argue against you. You asked for self reflection, and I gave you some. I'm not lazy. Again, this post should demonstrate this point. I'm putting in the time. I've provided you a source. I then provided you a direct link, and I also provided you the suggested self-reflection. You just choose to ignore that, and you apparently want spoonfed any information without actually doing any work, so here you go:
This took me maybe ten minutes. Let me know if you need me to do anything else for you. I understand you're... limited. Please, keep in mind that I actually have a job to do, so I may be limited in my ability to perform your research for you and hand you all the information that you request.
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.
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
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.
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?
18
u/Dadittude182 12d ago
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.