Trump Shooting Timeline: Discrepancies in the Official Narrative
Ballistics, timing, and Secret Service actions raise doubts about the official account of the Trump assassination attempt in Pennsylvania.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Trump Ear Shot: The Story That Doesn't Add Up
What exactly peine at Trump's rally in Pennsylvania? The official version describes an assassination attempt. The shooter, identified as Crooks, allegedly fired from a roof about 120 meters away. Trump was unharmed except for an ear injury. This is the narrative repeated by all media outlets. However, upon closer inspection, the script unravels on several fronts.
The first issue is ballistic. A 5.56 × 45 mm cartridge, the caliber attributed to the attacker's weapon, does not graze an ear; it destroys it. As one participant bluntly put it: "if a bullet grazes him, half his ear goes." The comparison with boxer Evander Holyfield, who had half his ear bitten off, illustrates the scale of damage that should have occurred. Instead, photos show the former president with an apparently intact ear weeks later.
Secret Service Choreography
In a real attack, bodyguards tackle the principal to the ground and cover them with their bodies. Here, according to various circulating analyses, Trump remained standing with his arm raised, even when being loaded into the vehicle. "It is very shocking that he stayed turned to his right for so long just before the shot," notes one message. Many read the sequence as a staged performance.
The second front concerns timing. Trump disappears from camera view for more than a minute surrounded by his team. Some argue this interval is more than enough for quick makeup application. Meanwhile, the nearby crowd, who should have been hit by shots missing their target, remains unmoved and shows no visible injuries.
Who Benefits from the Attack?
This political question is the most frequently asked. An assassination attempt generates votes, citing Ansar as a precedent whose name appears in the material. The dominant thesis is that the attack, whether real or fabricated, benefits Trump. But there is a twisted reading: in previous attacks, the beneficiary was the pogre sector, while Trumpist conspiracy theories built the false flag narrative. Now roles are reversed, and Biden-aligned officials fuel suspicion.
Ultimately, the regenerated ear like a comic book character has become the symbol of the entire affair. The question is not whether shots were fired, but why the official narrative requires people not to look too closely.
What exactly peine at Trump's rally in Pennsylvania? The official version describes an assassination attempt. The shooter, identified as Crooks, allegedly fired from a roof about 120 meters away. Trump was unharmed except for an ear injury. This is the narrative repeated by all media outlets. However, upon closer inspection, the script unravels on several fronts.
The first issue is ballistic. A 5.56 × 45 mm cartridge, the caliber attributed to the attacker's weapon, does not graze an ear; it destroys it. As one participant bluntly put it: "if a bullet grazes him, half his ear goes." The comparison with boxer Evander Holyfield, who had half his ear bitten off, illustrates the scale of damage that should have occurred. Instead, photos show the former president with an apparently intact ear weeks later.
Secret Service Choreography
In a real attack, bodyguards tackle the principal to the ground and cover them with their bodies. Here, according to various circulating analyses, Trump remained standing with his arm raised, even when being loaded into the vehicle. "It is very shocking that he stayed turned to his right for so long just before the shot," notes one message. Many read the sequence as a staged performance.
The second front concerns timing. Trump disappears from camera view for more than a minute surrounded by his team. Some argue this interval is more than enough for quick makeup application. Meanwhile, the nearby crowd, who should have been hit by shots missing their target, remains unmoved and shows no visible injuries.
Who Benefits from the Attack?
This political question is the most frequently asked. An assassination attempt generates votes, citing Ansar as a precedent whose name appears in the material. The dominant thesis is that the attack, whether real or fabricated, benefits Trump. But there is a twisted reading: in previous attacks, the beneficiary was the pogre sector, while Trumpist conspiracy theories built the false flag narrative. Now roles are reversed, and Biden-aligned officials fuel suspicion.
Ultimately, the regenerated ear like a comic book character has become the symbol of the entire affair. The question is not whether shots were fired, but why the official narrative requires people not to look too closely.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (120 replies).
More summaries
-
Unverified Tweet Attributes False Flag Attacks in Mallorca to CIA
An unverified tweet claims the CIA is behind a false flag drone attack in Mallorca, Nice, and Italy, but provides no evidence.
-
Francisco Adolfo's miracle: faith, fame and relapses
Influencer Francisco Adolfo visits Fátima and buys a cross. Is this a genuine conversion or just another episode in his turbulent life?
-
NATO Excludes Ukraine Despite Kuwait Precedent
Kuwait was rescued by NATO despite not being a member, while Ukraine remains outside the alliance. Russian nuclear arsenal is cited as the real deterrent.
-
Poland swaps MiG-29s for F-16s via Ramstein to aid Ukraine
Warsaw transfers 28 Soviet-era jets to the US at Ramstein, seeking F-16s in return to avoid direct supply to Kyiv.
-
Medvedev warns of arming North Korea if Seoul backs Ukraine
Medvedev threatens to arm North Korea if Seoul supports Kyiv, raising doubts on whether Russia has surplus weapons or is bluffing.
-
TVE Broadcasts Ukrainian Refugees with Bandera Portraits
TVE aired a segment on Ukrainian refugees featuring portraits of Bandera and Shujevych; the network claims no ideological context was provided.