Looks like a horrendous-quality "photo" of a perfectly normal ear to me, though the ear and/or "photo" (calling it a photo is an insult to photography) might have been slightly retouched.
If this is the best evidence that Trump's ear was hit by an assault rifle bullet, I rest my case.
I think you have a burden of proof as well, I've seen equally bad (blurry) photos of the Netanyahu meeting showing Trump's healed ear, but actually the above link looks more believable to me than this:
Whether or not Alan Sabrosky and other experts are right that an assault rifle bullet just isn't going to cause this kind of minor wound with exactly the right amount of blood for the PR op, the odds of a "lone nut just happened to get lucky" leading to a picture-perfect PR op are one in a zillion. There is just no way around that. So either you believe God is Trump's PR agent, or pro wrestling impresario Ari Emmanuel is. I think it's Emmanuel. But "to you your religion, to me mine."
What I believe is that Trump isn't that good an actor. I think he has diarrhea of the mouth and virtually no filter between what he thinks and what he says (which is a refreshing change actually-- even if this trait is non presidential). I think any expert can agree a near miss is possible-- even if that means the bullet's shockwave got just close enough to cause some damage and bleeding. God may or may not have been involved. (yours, mine or both ;)
Well, anything is possible, though not everything is equally probable, and God (the only one, that neither of us fully understand) works in mysterious ways. Far be it from me to say that God definitely didn't miraculously create a real shooting that played out in every last detail exactly as if it had been an Ari Emmanuel kayfabe PR stunt. But I still think the obvious, non-miraculous explanation is more likely.
For additional evidence you might check out Peter Yim’s stack. Here’s a piece on why Trump’s description about hearing a “whizzing” sound can’t possibly be right - the sonic boom would likely have deafened him in his right ear: https://peteryim.substack.com/p/supersonic-bullets-produce-deafening.
For further discussion and analysis of photos look at other articles on Yim's stack.
I find the photo to which you link to be ambiguous. There is an asymmetry to its interpretation. If it shows no damage then we can conclude that Trump was not hit. If it shows damage then no conclusion can be drawn because the damage could be faked. (I suppose that the no damage case might also be faked, but that would be harder and what would be the motive?)
I’ve wondered whether such photos are deliberately ambiguous. They are almost like Rorschach tests. You see what you want to believe. But could there possibly be a purpose to such ambiguity? Could the ambiguity be put forth in order to drive division among the populace? Perhaps that’s too much of a stretch for even the more conspiratorial of us.
Thanks for that response Andrew Blair. If we assume the projectile was supersonic, you're right-- Trump should have reported a "crack"-- not a "whiz." We know there was more than 1 shooter, but I don't know if we know all reports produced supersonic bullets. I can conceive of a scenario where the patsy was given substandard ammo and maybe that is what Trump heard. We don't have evidence of bystanders near the other victims losing their hearing, but I do believe what they heard was loud. Also the 50 cal first example in your link has far more energy than 223/556 so that is misleading. I don't have a strong opinion on this other than I stated I don't think Trump can be trusted with a lie as large as this due to his ego and lack of verbal filter. My wife believes she has seen a visible change in Trump's demeanor-- as if he was humbled by a brush with death. He should have pounded his survival story like a cheap drum on the campaign trail, but he really hasn't done that and the momentum has died. I argued maybe he was part of the fakery and hence didn't want to focus more eyes on details that could incriminate him.
I wonder how much good the Trump earsassination actually did for his campaign considering the propaganda blitzkrieg that the Harris campaign has become. I read Google news to keep an eye on the mainstream but my tolerance level for the deceit is waning quickly. Help.
I look forward to FFWN every week and wish I could afford to contribute more than my social insecurity check allows. As a news junkie, I need my daily fix of outrage and rare instances of hope. RFK Jr. joining Trump is one of those instances despite the screeching from the Kennedy clan.
I just wrote about this for this week's American Free Press. Trump and Kennedy might be a good team if it weren't for their total enslavement to the Zionists.
I agree with your egalitarian version of libertarianism. The ideal way to implement it, of course, would be to convince everyone (including potentially super-rich people) to go along with it. Islamic civilization has a mixed track record in these matters, but I think it's better overall than other civilizations. The 2.5% wealth/income tax (on everything beyond basic needs), prohibition of interest, discouragement/prohibition on "piling up" wealth (see surat al-takathur), and extremely strong potlatch-culture style encouragement of voluntary charity i.e. giving away everything beyond basic needs, together amount to a recipe for economic justice that blends the best aspects of libertarianism and socialism.
I basically agree with you. I have worked with lots of ex-military and ex-CIA types since I was forced out of academia and into 9/11 truth, and have tried to broadcast subversive truth in such a way as to convince police and military people to join us by appealing to their sense of justice. That said, actual violent revolutions against the rich haven't turned out all that well. The French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions probably caused more suffering than less violent reformism would have. Violent revolutions have tapped into a satanic messianic-millenarian nihilistic vibe, much of it coming out of heretical Judaism (and manipulated and fostered by the richest people on Earth). So though I'm in basic agreement with your program, I'm wary about what might happen if it actually materialized. If we don't win the spiritual battle, we won't win the political one either in the long run.
I agree that winning what you call the spiritual battle is key to avoiding the terrible outcomes of the revolutions you cited. I think winning the spiritual battle means winning the war of ideas about what the goal of the movement (revolution) is and what it is not.
The goal of egalitarian revolution is entirely different from that of Marxist revolutions, as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-is-anti-marxism . (The goal of the French Revolution, at least as far as its actual pro-capitalism lawyer leaders were concerned, was a reformed kind of class inequality without a monarch but never the abolition of class inequality.)
Kevin, you are placing a lot of weight on "the fact" that Trump's ear healed "completely" by the time of Netanyahu's visit for your fake assassination attempt argument. Can you show us that evidence? Here I see some bruising and missing skin at the top: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/exclusive-first-photos-president-trumps-ear-without-bandages/
Looks like a horrendous-quality "photo" of a perfectly normal ear to me, though the ear and/or "photo" (calling it a photo is an insult to photography) might have been slightly retouched.
If this is the best evidence that Trump's ear was hit by an assault rifle bullet, I rest my case.
See my reply to Joe Chovan.
I think you have a burden of proof as well, I've seen equally bad (blurry) photos of the Netanyahu meeting showing Trump's healed ear, but actually the above link looks more believable to me than this:
https://endtimeheadlines.org/2024/07/new-images-reveal-that-trumps-ear-has-made-a-remarkably-quick-recovery-in-less-than-two-weeks/
Whether or not Alan Sabrosky and other experts are right that an assault rifle bullet just isn't going to cause this kind of minor wound with exactly the right amount of blood for the PR op, the odds of a "lone nut just happened to get lucky" leading to a picture-perfect PR op are one in a zillion. There is just no way around that. So either you believe God is Trump's PR agent, or pro wrestling impresario Ari Emmanuel is. I think it's Emmanuel. But "to you your religion, to me mine."
What I believe is that Trump isn't that good an actor. I think he has diarrhea of the mouth and virtually no filter between what he thinks and what he says (which is a refreshing change actually-- even if this trait is non presidential). I think any expert can agree a near miss is possible-- even if that means the bullet's shockwave got just close enough to cause some damage and bleeding. God may or may not have been involved. (yours, mine or both ;)
Well, anything is possible, though not everything is equally probable, and God (the only one, that neither of us fully understand) works in mysterious ways. Far be it from me to say that God definitely didn't miraculously create a real shooting that played out in every last detail exactly as if it had been an Ari Emmanuel kayfabe PR stunt. But I still think the obvious, non-miraculous explanation is more likely.
For additional evidence you might check out Peter Yim’s stack. Here’s a piece on why Trump’s description about hearing a “whizzing” sound can’t possibly be right - the sonic boom would likely have deafened him in his right ear: https://peteryim.substack.com/p/supersonic-bullets-produce-deafening.
For further discussion and analysis of photos look at other articles on Yim's stack.
I find the photo to which you link to be ambiguous. There is an asymmetry to its interpretation. If it shows no damage then we can conclude that Trump was not hit. If it shows damage then no conclusion can be drawn because the damage could be faked. (I suppose that the no damage case might also be faked, but that would be harder and what would be the motive?)
I’ve wondered whether such photos are deliberately ambiguous. They are almost like Rorschach tests. You see what you want to believe. But could there possibly be a purpose to such ambiguity? Could the ambiguity be put forth in order to drive division among the populace? Perhaps that’s too much of a stretch for even the more conspiratorial of us.
Thanks for that response Andrew Blair. If we assume the projectile was supersonic, you're right-- Trump should have reported a "crack"-- not a "whiz." We know there was more than 1 shooter, but I don't know if we know all reports produced supersonic bullets. I can conceive of a scenario where the patsy was given substandard ammo and maybe that is what Trump heard. We don't have evidence of bystanders near the other victims losing their hearing, but I do believe what they heard was loud. Also the 50 cal first example in your link has far more energy than 223/556 so that is misleading. I don't have a strong opinion on this other than I stated I don't think Trump can be trusted with a lie as large as this due to his ego and lack of verbal filter. My wife believes she has seen a visible change in Trump's demeanor-- as if he was humbled by a brush with death. He should have pounded his survival story like a cheap drum on the campaign trail, but he really hasn't done that and the momentum has died. I argued maybe he was part of the fakery and hence didn't want to focus more eyes on details that could incriminate him.
I wonder how much good the Trump earsassination actually did for his campaign considering the propaganda blitzkrieg that the Harris campaign has become. I read Google news to keep an eye on the mainstream but my tolerance level for the deceit is waning quickly. Help.
Good question. I also wonder about the effect of RFK Jr. joining forces with Trump. You can ignore MSM and just catch the FFWN analysis once a week: https://kevinbarrett.heresycentral.is/category/ffwn/
I look forward to FFWN every week and wish I could afford to contribute more than my social insecurity check allows. As a news junkie, I need my daily fix of outrage and rare instances of hope. RFK Jr. joining Trump is one of those instances despite the screeching from the Kennedy clan.
I just wrote about this for this week's American Free Press. Trump and Kennedy might be a good team if it weren't for their total enslavement to the Zionists.
It sounds to me like maybe you are an egalitarian (as I am) rather than a libertarian.
Regarding private property and egalitarianism, I wrote this: https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-and-private-property- .
Regarding libertarianism, I wrote this: https://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/libertaria-a-libertarian-paradise?r=1iggn .
I wonder what your thoughts are about this.
I agree with your egalitarian version of libertarianism. The ideal way to implement it, of course, would be to convince everyone (including potentially super-rich people) to go along with it. Islamic civilization has a mixed track record in these matters, but I think it's better overall than other civilizations. The 2.5% wealth/income tax (on everything beyond basic needs), prohibition of interest, discouragement/prohibition on "piling up" wealth (see surat al-takathur), and extremely strong potlatch-culture style encouragement of voluntary charity i.e. giving away everything beyond basic needs, together amount to a recipe for economic justice that blends the best aspects of libertarianism and socialism.
In the likely event that the super rich people don't want to allow our society to be egalitarian, here's what we can do: https://www.pdrboston.org/how-we-can-remove-the-rich-from-power . What do you think?
I basically agree with you. I have worked with lots of ex-military and ex-CIA types since I was forced out of academia and into 9/11 truth, and have tried to broadcast subversive truth in such a way as to convince police and military people to join us by appealing to their sense of justice. That said, actual violent revolutions against the rich haven't turned out all that well. The French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions probably caused more suffering than less violent reformism would have. Violent revolutions have tapped into a satanic messianic-millenarian nihilistic vibe, much of it coming out of heretical Judaism (and manipulated and fostered by the richest people on Earth). So though I'm in basic agreement with your program, I'm wary about what might happen if it actually materialized. If we don't win the spiritual battle, we won't win the political one either in the long run.
I agree that winning what you call the spiritual battle is key to avoiding the terrible outcomes of the revolutions you cited. I think winning the spiritual battle means winning the war of ideas about what the goal of the movement (revolution) is and what it is not.
The goal of egalitarian revolution is entirely different from that of Marxist revolutions, as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-is-anti-marxism . (The goal of the French Revolution, at least as far as its actual pro-capitalism lawyer leaders were concerned, was a reformed kind of class inequality without a monarch but never the abolition of class inequality.)
The question is how to prevent the abuse of power, and I discuss this at https://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/how-can-abuse-of-power-be-prevented?r=1iggn .
What do you think?