A few minutes ago, a friend of mine pointed out something that no one seems to be talking about: an apparent gunshot wound on the leg of Thomas Crooks.
Thank you for helping keep this story "alive" until we have the "Whats" "Whens" and "Hows" leading us to the ultimate "Who" that, of course, as of now, all point to the feds "management".
And speaking of the Who, Whats, Whens, Wheres, and Whys, tripping onto the scene is "useful" Jill Biden at her Italian Heritage dinner speech up the road "pulling resources". A trip that was scheduled After President Trump's Butler Rally was posted to S.S.
Jill shows up in a white suit (perhaps the one from the cover of Vogue) on a Saturday night in her home state in the middle of July. Who in their right mind would go to an Italian dinner in a white suit? It must have been Alfredo sauce all evening. Here she is looking how I would expect her to look, dressed in her upholstery favorites "at home."
I don't know dirt about ballistics but I do know what to wear if salsa, red chile, tomato sauce are going to be around cameras and public speaking. I appreciate you all.
I think the blood came from the head wound & flowed down the roof & his leg was in the pool of this blood. (The head is very vascular & bleeds profusely - which is why there was so much blood from President Trump’s ear)
Looking at counter pic that Andrew added after it was sent to him with fresh eyes today. Maybe it is the right leg being displayed after all. I'm not certain, but now allow for the possibility. However, even if it is the same leg Andrew and I are speaking to, I'm not sure that the pic disproves the theory. It just isn't clear enough to tell.
Also, I want to emphasize that I am not claiming there was absolutely a shot to Crooks' knee; not digging in and ready to make a final stand on that hill. I am more suggesting that there is a reason to take a close look. I welcome any and all well thought out feedback. I'm sure that Andrew does too. I am very aware that one can see all kinds of things in graining photos, just as one can hear all sorts of things in low grade audio recordings. The marks on the knee just caught my eye and looked like a GSW to me.
I shared some of the pertinent text of your article with Frank AI. It responded like this:
This analysis from the Substack post brings up several intriguing points and observations. Here are a few things to consider:
### Critical Analysis of the Observations
1. **Visual Evidence:**
- The marks on Thomas Crooks' leg could indeed be indicative of a gunshot wound, but without medical confirmation or more detailed footage, it's speculative.
- Digital artifacts and smudges can sometimes mimic injuries, so careful analysis by experts is essential.
2. **Camera Angle and Perspective:**
- Bodycam footage can sometimes distort or obscure details due to angles, movement, and lighting conditions.
- Multiple sources of footage (e.g., different bodycams, security cameras) would provide a more comprehensive view.
3. **Forensic Analysis:**
- A proper forensic examination would involve medical professionals who can confirm whether the marks are indeed gunshot wounds.
- Forensic experts can also determine the trajectory of the bullets and provide insights into how the injuries occurred.
### Contextual Considerations
1. **Speculation vs. Evidence:**
- While speculation can lead to new insights, it’s important to differentiate between hypothesizing and confirmed facts.
- Official reports from law enforcement or medical examiners will carry more weight in determining what actually happened.
2. **Public Information:**
- The release of bodycam footage by police suggests a degree of transparency, but it may not show the complete picture.
- Additional information from official investigations will help clarify these observations.
### Ethical Considerations
1. **Respect for Individuals Involved:**
- Discussions about injuries and violent events should be approached with sensitivity to those affected.
- Speculative analysis should be balanced with respect for privacy and dignity.
2. **Responsible Reporting:**
- Journalists and bloggers have a responsibility to verify information before presenting it as fact.
- Encouraging critical thinking and skepticism is important, but so is avoiding unwarranted panic or misinformation.
### Conclusion
The observations made in the Substack post are thought-provoking and raise valid questions that merit further investigation. However, definitive conclusions should be drawn based on thorough forensic analysis and official reports. Public speculation can play a role in keeping authorities accountable, but it should always be grounded in respect for factual accuracy and ethical considerations.
I agree with all of this, with the following caveats:
1) Unfortunately, our government has established that they cannot be trusted on anything. Therefore, listen to what they have to say, but verify it independently before believing it.
2) The "sensitivity" portion of this is PC mumbo jumbo.
3) To be clear, though I think you know this, my article does not say Crooks was shot in the leg, but that frames of the video can be interpreted that way.
For what it’s worth (and I think you have a good “working relationship” with and understanding of AI), I shared your reply with Frank AI (all of this was done without identifying you or this particular substack btw) and it said this:
Thank you for sharing the Substack author's response. Here are some thoughts and further analysis based on their caveats:
### Addressing the Caveats
1. **Government Trust and Independent Verification:**
- It's understandable to approach government statements with skepticism, especially in contexts where trust has been eroded.
- Independent verification is crucial. This can involve third-party experts, independent media, and open-source investigations to cross-check information.
2. **Sensitivity and Ethical Reporting:**
- While the author dismisses the importance of sensitivity as "PC mumbo jumbo," it's still important to consider the ethical implications of reporting on potentially traumatic events.
- Balancing critical analysis with respect for those involved ensures responsible journalism and maintains public trust.
3. **Clarification on Interpretation:**
- The author clarifies that their article does not definitively state that Crooks was shot in the leg but rather that the video frames can be interpreted in that way.
- This distinction is important as it emphasizes the speculative nature of the analysis and encourages readers to consider multiple interpretations.
### Further Considerations
- **Encouraging Critical Thinking:**
- The author's approach fosters critical thinking by encouraging readers to question and verify information independently.
- Providing clear disclaimers about the speculative nature of such interpretations helps maintain a balanced perspective.
- **Engagement with Readers:**
- Engaging with readers' feedback and addressing their concerns can enhance the credibility and depth of the discussion.
- Open dialogue between authors and readers can lead to more nuanced understanding and uncover additional insights.
### Conclusion
The Substack author's response highlights important aspects of skepticism, ethical considerations, and clarity in interpretation. While maintaining a critical stance towards official narratives is valuable, it's equally important to approach sensitive topics with care and responsibility.
This phrase became well-known during the Cold War era and was often used by Reagan in the context of arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. It encapsulates the idea of building trust while still ensuring accountability through verification.
Okay. I'm just mentioning it because it looks interesting, and a friend of mine, a former marine, who knows what bullet wounds look like, thinks it is. From my point of view, I just want to ask the question.
That police body cam footage has to be out there somewhere “unblurred,” and maybe it could give more clues. Will there eventually be some kind of comprehensive report with unblurred removal or autopsy pictures? (Sadly we may wonder if it will be completely accurate if it’s coming from certain sources (like the one who got the voting issues report from the NYSP and as far as I know has not yet made any conclusions publicly available).)
You say "definitely not". Care to elaborate why you think definitely not? That's a very certain statement.
It sure looks like one to me, though I am not going to say "definitely is". The film is not clear enough to be definite. However, as Andrew says, the marks are consistently seen on the knee throughout the video. So we know it is not a shadow. Could it be a blood stain? No, I don't think so because the mark below the knee is not colored. It appears to be an indentation that is not consistent with normal anatomy, that terminates in a hole. Those features cannot be consistently observed due to poor video quality, but they can be seen fairly clearly at a certain point in the video when there is a close up of the right knee. Above the knee is colored like raw meat. What it is can not be clearly determined. However, in context with the mark below the knee, a bullet exit wound makes sense. That is what bullet entrance and exit wounds look like on extremities and the torso *on a person who was killed simultaneous, or nearly so, with the wound*. When a person is killed by the shot or shots in close proximity, or is already dead, the bruising and swelling typically associated with gunshot wounds does not occur. The caliber of the weapon, the range, the type of ammunition and the area of the body impacted will cause different degrees of tissue destruction. For that reason alone, I question how anyone can say that what we can see is definitely not a gunshot. Gunshots come in a wide range of shapes, sizes and levels of damage. The wound looks to me like what a 5.56mm out of a short barreled carbine would do.
The pic that was offered (above) to Andrew as evidence against a gunshot wound to the knee and in favor of a mere blood stain or dirt smudge isn't the right leg, which the leg in question. Look at the shoes to help orient your perspective.
I am Andrew's friend who he mentioned and who pointed out the possible gsw to the knee to him
The official number of shots by the shooter is eight (8). If the shooter got shot in the leg as well as the kill shot to his head, we would have to hear it on the audio recordings from that day.
As I recall, there was a potential 10th shot, roughly simultaneous with the 8th. In an audio analysis I saw online, you could see a possible tenth shot buried within another one by looking at the audio track.
I have read and watched so much video and analysis on this. Somewhere I came across a doctor saying that there did not seem to be enough blood and brain spray around the head area. I will see if I can find it again.
It didn't look like much debris from the head wound, though the amount of blood was believable. If the knee "wound" is in fact a knee wound, I wonder where the debris from that might be.
Well, there you go. I think the local boys finally got themselves to the lip of the roof and managed to cap Crooks in the knee, effectively ending his little rampage. Then, maybe, the feds finished him with a headshot. I don't believe anything the feds say at this point, which is why I added the "maybe". Perhaps the locals also shot him in the head with a smaller caliber - like a 5.56mm carbine - which would explain the lack of sprayed brains/gore that one would expect from the fed's big 300 win mag rifles.
At 5:43 of the posted video, one member of swat says “watch out for shell casings.” The shoulder cam agent counts, “2,3,4,5 right there.” The FBI narrative is that 8 casings were spent from Crooks, alone??
Dr Chris Martenson’s first audio analysis concludes that the second volley of 5 shots had signature echos and came from Crooks’ position on the roof. He’s not sure of shot number 3 in that sequence.
He believes the very first volley of 3 shots had no echo, and was muffled, likely coming from within the building, perhaps, below Crooks.
In Martenson’s presentation, a 6th shot follows immediately in the sequence after Crooks’ 5th round. This 6th shot sounds very different—a short ‘crack’—hypothetically this could be from a Sniper in the window at a vantage point behind Crooks.
The last shot of the total series is heard 15+ seconds later. It has a similar ‘crack’ sound like shot 6, but it is louder, and likely from the sniper who made the kill shot positioned just behind and above Trump.
Although both of those last two shots may have come from one sniper, from one weapon, it is possible a similar weapon was fired from a different location, because of the diminished ‘crack’ sound of shot 6.
Conceivably, the last two shots of the entire series came from the same type of weapon with the same type of suppressing mechanism. This would be consistent with use by snipers from the same team, using the same type weapon, with similar training.
This hypothesis would also align with two separate snipers shooting at Crooks. The last shot was to his head, presumed taken from the front, and from the sniper behind Trump. Shot 6 is taken first and comes from a sniper behind Crooks, wounding him in the leg, making Dr. Paquette’s postulation, very plausible.
Thank you for helping keep this story "alive" until we have the "Whats" "Whens" and "Hows" leading us to the ultimate "Who" that, of course, as of now, all point to the feds "management".
And speaking of the Who, Whats, Whens, Wheres, and Whys, tripping onto the scene is "useful" Jill Biden at her Italian Heritage dinner speech up the road "pulling resources". A trip that was scheduled After President Trump's Butler Rally was posted to S.S.
Jill shows up in a white suit (perhaps the one from the cover of Vogue) on a Saturday night in her home state in the middle of July. Who in their right mind would go to an Italian dinner in a white suit? It must have been Alfredo sauce all evening. Here she is looking how I would expect her to look, dressed in her upholstery favorites "at home."
https://penncapital-star.com/briefs/jill-biden-coming-to-pittsburgh-on-saturday-to-attend-italian-sons-and-daughters-of-america-dinner/
I don't know dirt about ballistics but I do know what to wear if salsa, red chile, tomato sauce are going to be around cameras and public speaking. I appreciate you all.
https://orderisda.org/culture/women/dr-jill-biden-delivers-heritage-address-at-dinner-hosted-by-basil-russo-and-isda-celebrating-italian-american-womens-contributions-to-our-country/
Her white suit screams "rushed" to someone who had to go many "dinners."
I think the blood came from the head wound & flowed down the roof & his leg was in the pool of this blood. (The head is very vascular & bleeds profusely - which is why there was so much blood from President Trump’s ear)
Bleeding alone wouldn't create holes in his leg.
After reading the comments, seeing the videos presented and seeing your graphics, there is a long way to go on this investigation.
Mitchel Pearce,
Looking at counter pic that Andrew added after it was sent to him with fresh eyes today. Maybe it is the right leg being displayed after all. I'm not certain, but now allow for the possibility. However, even if it is the same leg Andrew and I are speaking to, I'm not sure that the pic disproves the theory. It just isn't clear enough to tell.
Also, I want to emphasize that I am not claiming there was absolutely a shot to Crooks' knee; not digging in and ready to make a final stand on that hill. I am more suggesting that there is a reason to take a close look. I welcome any and all well thought out feedback. I'm sure that Andrew does too. I am very aware that one can see all kinds of things in graining photos, just as one can hear all sorts of things in low grade audio recordings. The marks on the knee just caught my eye and looked like a GSW to me.
I shared some of the pertinent text of your article with Frank AI. It responded like this:
This analysis from the Substack post brings up several intriguing points and observations. Here are a few things to consider:
### Critical Analysis of the Observations
1. **Visual Evidence:**
- The marks on Thomas Crooks' leg could indeed be indicative of a gunshot wound, but without medical confirmation or more detailed footage, it's speculative.
- Digital artifacts and smudges can sometimes mimic injuries, so careful analysis by experts is essential.
2. **Camera Angle and Perspective:**
- Bodycam footage can sometimes distort or obscure details due to angles, movement, and lighting conditions.
- Multiple sources of footage (e.g., different bodycams, security cameras) would provide a more comprehensive view.
3. **Forensic Analysis:**
- A proper forensic examination would involve medical professionals who can confirm whether the marks are indeed gunshot wounds.
- Forensic experts can also determine the trajectory of the bullets and provide insights into how the injuries occurred.
### Contextual Considerations
1. **Speculation vs. Evidence:**
- While speculation can lead to new insights, it’s important to differentiate between hypothesizing and confirmed facts.
- Official reports from law enforcement or medical examiners will carry more weight in determining what actually happened.
2. **Public Information:**
- The release of bodycam footage by police suggests a degree of transparency, but it may not show the complete picture.
- Additional information from official investigations will help clarify these observations.
### Ethical Considerations
1. **Respect for Individuals Involved:**
- Discussions about injuries and violent events should be approached with sensitivity to those affected.
- Speculative analysis should be balanced with respect for privacy and dignity.
2. **Responsible Reporting:**
- Journalists and bloggers have a responsibility to verify information before presenting it as fact.
- Encouraging critical thinking and skepticism is important, but so is avoiding unwarranted panic or misinformation.
### Conclusion
The observations made in the Substack post are thought-provoking and raise valid questions that merit further investigation. However, definitive conclusions should be drawn based on thorough forensic analysis and official reports. Public speculation can play a role in keeping authorities accountable, but it should always be grounded in respect for factual accuracy and ethical considerations.
I agree with all of this, with the following caveats:
1) Unfortunately, our government has established that they cannot be trusted on anything. Therefore, listen to what they have to say, but verify it independently before believing it.
2) The "sensitivity" portion of this is PC mumbo jumbo.
3) To be clear, though I think you know this, my article does not say Crooks was shot in the leg, but that frames of the video can be interpreted that way.
For what it’s worth (and I think you have a good “working relationship” with and understanding of AI), I shared your reply with Frank AI (all of this was done without identifying you or this particular substack btw) and it said this:
Thank you for sharing the Substack author's response. Here are some thoughts and further analysis based on their caveats:
### Addressing the Caveats
1. **Government Trust and Independent Verification:**
- It's understandable to approach government statements with skepticism, especially in contexts where trust has been eroded.
- Independent verification is crucial. This can involve third-party experts, independent media, and open-source investigations to cross-check information.
2. **Sensitivity and Ethical Reporting:**
- While the author dismisses the importance of sensitivity as "PC mumbo jumbo," it's still important to consider the ethical implications of reporting on potentially traumatic events.
- Balancing critical analysis with respect for those involved ensures responsible journalism and maintains public trust.
3. **Clarification on Interpretation:**
- The author clarifies that their article does not definitively state that Crooks was shot in the leg but rather that the video frames can be interpreted in that way.
- This distinction is important as it emphasizes the speculative nature of the analysis and encourages readers to consider multiple interpretations.
### Further Considerations
- **Encouraging Critical Thinking:**
- The author's approach fosters critical thinking by encouraging readers to question and verify information independently.
- Providing clear disclaimers about the speculative nature of such interpretations helps maintain a balanced perspective.
- **Engagement with Readers:**
- Engaging with readers' feedback and addressing their concerns can enhance the credibility and depth of the discussion.
- Open dialogue between authors and readers can lead to more nuanced understanding and uncover additional insights.
### Conclusion
The Substack author's response highlights important aspects of skepticism, ethical considerations, and clarity in interpretation. While maintaining a critical stance towards official narratives is valuable, it's equally important to approach sensitive topics with care and responsibility.
President Ronald Reagan's famous quote is:
"Trust, but verify."
In Russian, it is:
"Доверяй, но проверяй" (Doveriai, no proveryai).
This phrase became well-known during the Cold War era and was often used by Reagan in the context of arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. It encapsulates the idea of building trust while still ensuring accountability through verification.
Maybe not so much trust though, come to think of it. :/
I don’t see any problem with raising important concerns and asking intelligent questions in this very public news event.
That is very definitely not a bullet wound to the leg.
Okay. I'm just mentioning it because it looks interesting, and a friend of mine, a former marine, who knows what bullet wounds look like, thinks it is. From my point of view, I just want to ask the question.
I DM’d you a couple of images on X.
If you reread the article, you'll see I responded
That police body cam footage has to be out there somewhere “unblurred,” and maybe it could give more clues. Will there eventually be some kind of comprehensive report with unblurred removal or autopsy pictures? (Sadly we may wonder if it will be completely accurate if it’s coming from certain sources (like the one who got the voting issues report from the NYSP and as far as I know has not yet made any conclusions publicly available).)
Mitchell Pearce,
You say "definitely not". Care to elaborate why you think definitely not? That's a very certain statement.
It sure looks like one to me, though I am not going to say "definitely is". The film is not clear enough to be definite. However, as Andrew says, the marks are consistently seen on the knee throughout the video. So we know it is not a shadow. Could it be a blood stain? No, I don't think so because the mark below the knee is not colored. It appears to be an indentation that is not consistent with normal anatomy, that terminates in a hole. Those features cannot be consistently observed due to poor video quality, but they can be seen fairly clearly at a certain point in the video when there is a close up of the right knee. Above the knee is colored like raw meat. What it is can not be clearly determined. However, in context with the mark below the knee, a bullet exit wound makes sense. That is what bullet entrance and exit wounds look like on extremities and the torso *on a person who was killed simultaneous, or nearly so, with the wound*. When a person is killed by the shot or shots in close proximity, or is already dead, the bruising and swelling typically associated with gunshot wounds does not occur. The caliber of the weapon, the range, the type of ammunition and the area of the body impacted will cause different degrees of tissue destruction. For that reason alone, I question how anyone can say that what we can see is definitely not a gunshot. Gunshots come in a wide range of shapes, sizes and levels of damage. The wound looks to me like what a 5.56mm out of a short barreled carbine would do.
The pic that was offered (above) to Andrew as evidence against a gunshot wound to the knee and in favor of a mere blood stain or dirt smudge isn't the right leg, which the leg in question. Look at the shoes to help orient your perspective.
I am Andrew's friend who he mentioned and who pointed out the possible gsw to the knee to him
The official number of shots by the shooter is eight (8). If the shooter got shot in the leg as well as the kill shot to his head, we would have to hear it on the audio recordings from that day.
I also posted these for further analysis:
https://x.com/NcFortwiter/status/1818809152916881471
As I recall, there was a potential 10th shot, roughly simultaneous with the 8th. In an audio analysis I saw online, you could see a possible tenth shot buried within another one by looking at the audio track.
Are there body cam and/or autopsy, etc. images that would show all wounds the shooter had? It looked like a lot of blood came from his head area.
I have read and watched so much video and analysis on this. Somewhere I came across a doctor saying that there did not seem to be enough blood and brain spray around the head area. I will see if I can find it again.
It didn't look like much debris from the head wound, though the amount of blood was believable. If the knee "wound" is in fact a knee wound, I wonder where the debris from that might be.
And just now, this:
https://headlineusa.com/report-local-cop-not-secret-service-stopped-the-trump-shooter/
Well, there you go. I think the local boys finally got themselves to the lip of the roof and managed to cap Crooks in the knee, effectively ending his little rampage. Then, maybe, the feds finished him with a headshot. I don't believe anything the feds say at this point, which is why I added the "maybe". Perhaps the locals also shot him in the head with a smaller caliber - like a 5.56mm carbine - which would explain the lack of sprayed brains/gore that one would expect from the fed's big 300 win mag rifles.
At 5:43 of the posted video, one member of swat says “watch out for shell casings.” The shoulder cam agent counts, “2,3,4,5 right there.” The FBI narrative is that 8 casings were spent from Crooks, alone??
Dr Chris Martenson’s first audio analysis concludes that the second volley of 5 shots had signature echos and came from Crooks’ position on the roof. He’s not sure of shot number 3 in that sequence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LouUbMYb7Bc&t=1935s
He believes the very first volley of 3 shots had no echo, and was muffled, likely coming from within the building, perhaps, below Crooks.
In Martenson’s presentation, a 6th shot follows immediately in the sequence after Crooks’ 5th round. This 6th shot sounds very different—a short ‘crack’—hypothetically this could be from a Sniper in the window at a vantage point behind Crooks.
The last shot of the total series is heard 15+ seconds later. It has a similar ‘crack’ sound like shot 6, but it is louder, and likely from the sniper who made the kill shot positioned just behind and above Trump.
Although both of those last two shots may have come from one sniper, from one weapon, it is possible a similar weapon was fired from a different location, because of the diminished ‘crack’ sound of shot 6.
Conceivably, the last two shots of the entire series came from the same type of weapon with the same type of suppressing mechanism. This would be consistent with use by snipers from the same team, using the same type weapon, with similar training.
This hypothesis would also align with two separate snipers shooting at Crooks. The last shot was to his head, presumed taken from the front, and from the sniper behind Trump. Shot 6 is taken first and comes from a sniper behind Crooks, wounding him in the leg, making Dr. Paquette’s postulation, very plausible.
Here it is NC and AP
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/gunshot-re-enact-shows-bloodspray-head-pieces-absent/