100percentfedup.com
BREAKING: Audio Analysis Is 100% Clear Trump& Crowd Were Shot At By Two Separate People
Jovan Pulitzer was the first to break the news that the kid everyone is blaming for the Trump shooting was not the real shooter.
He was a patsy.
A fall guy.
The man designed to take all the blame, then be shot dead (dead men tell no tales) and then no one would ever talk about the assassination attempt ever again.
Or at least that was the plan.
But then people started piecing together a bunch of forensic evidence that didn’t make any sense and realizing there had to be a second shooter (perhaps more than one).
Jovan Pulitzer broke it all down here in the viral interview he did with me earlier this week. Read here if you haven’t seen this yet:
Jovan Pulitzer: “Return Snipers Did NOT Kill Him” — “There Was A Second Malvo Shooter!”
And now more evidence is coming out to confirm exactly what Jovan told us.
Big thanks to a reader for sending me this next video.
Excellent job by a YouTube channel called "Peak Prosperity".
They've done a deep dive into the audio of the shooting and confirmed there were TWO shooters.
And no, that's not referring to the return snipers.
This is excellent analysis, watch here (and share!):
Backup here if needed:
Audio Analysis Is 100% Clear Trump& Crowd Were Shot At By Two Separate People
MIRROR:https://t.co/fPzeffrEKH pic.twitter.com/uDDOVJM3VP
— DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) July 19, 2024
FULL TRANSCRIPT:
I'm coming to you today with rock-solid audio proof that there were at least two shooters shooting at Trump and the crowd, and therefore the official story of a lone gunman is complete bunk.
Hello everyone, I am Dr. Chris Martinson of Peak Prosperity. This is explosive. I'm actually nervous to bring this to you because, well, we know how much the Deep State, the state, whatever's going on, does not like having its narratives punctured. But obviously, there's a lot wrong with the Trump shooting. I'm going to show you rock-solid evidence today, and I'm making this public. I've been chewing on this for a while. I don't have the complete analysis yet. We're going to need more people to weigh in on this, but let me show you what I've got.
So, we're going to start here. This is day three of the cover-up, as we're calling it. And by the way, this is July 18th. I'm going to dedicate this to my brother, John Peter Martinson. He died when he was 23, just a hole ripped out of my heart, and today's his birthday. So I have to mention that. This is for you, John. I know he would have admired this work, and I'm doing this for you, and that's why I'm going to be proud and loud about this. There were two shooters.
So, let's reorient ourselves with the scene again. Let me get my drawing tool out or my pointing tool. Okay, so first up, they tell us that the shooter was here, very accurately located on the roof off of the drain pipe, as we covered before. I'll show you that one more time. I just want to make sure we're all sharing the same orientation because this is important, right? And we have two victims here: Comparator, who died, another guy who was very severely injured with life-altering injuries, and another gentleman back here in the upper right part of the stand. I'm going to show you all this evidence.
First up, we need to know where all the shots went, right? I'm going to show you that the first three shots came from a very different weapon in a different location than the next string of shots that came out. It's either five or six, depending on how you count, but you decide. Listen, it couldn't be more clear how different they are. This is the picture from on the roof of Crooks lying here dead, a little blood trailing down back here, but this allows us to locate him on the roof very, very accurately because of the raised seam metal roof.
Now the story is that there's actually a 5-foot ladder here, which you can't see in this photo. Apparently, he came up, would have come across, jumped down onto here, and then came over to here. Maybe that explains why his backpack, if that's what that is, is left there. Some other cop would have been lifted up and looked over the roof line. I don't know what that is.
Now, even CNN, a while ago, this is from CNN, so I'm saying even because these guys are deep-state aligned, operation Mockingbird, they don't print stuff unless it's pre-approved. Somebody allowed this information to come out, and they said here that the first three shots were consistent with Weapon A, and the next five consistent with alleged Weapon B, and the final acoustic impulse emitted by a third possible Weapon C. I believe that's true, and Weapon C is the sniper taking out Crooks. Best guess, I'll give you my big hypothesis at the end.
This was confirmed per audio analysis by Cataline Gregor's, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver. I'm sure that she and Cole White Cotton, the senior professional research associate, have much better access to much better analysis software and all of that. All I need to get out to you today is something that seems to be missing from the dialogue, and they're trying to run forward with this lone shooter, lone shooter junk, which of course is straight from their playbook. That's how they did it. That's what they did with JFK, they lied about that. That's what they did with RFK, they lied about that. So this is standard from the playbook kind of stuff. Lone nut with a mysterious motive we can't unravel. We're here to unravel all of that.
Rock solid, absolutely conclusive, and this is the best part about being alive today. We don't have to wait for 30-40 years for a Zuder film and people to analyze it. We're doing this in real-time and figuring this out as it's unfolding, and that is the absolute benefit of living in today's world with all these cell phones and cameras. Much harder to get away with really sloppy operations, and this was a sloppy operation because they missed their man, whoever was involved in this. But I can guarantee you that the information I'm presenting to you, they also have, but somehow they're hiding it, which of course is par for the course with these particular groups of people.
They said audio analysis confirmed the gunman was 360 to 393 feet away, according to another forensic expert, Robert Mayer. We all end up in the same ballpark. I end up a little closer to 430 feet, but it doesn't matter, all within the realm of analytical wiggle room.
So, we’re going to analyze two separate audio streams today. This is the first one. This is taken from a microphone right in front of the podium. You're going to hear two things, of course: a snap sound, which is very sharp, that's the supersonic crack of the bullet flying within, sending its supersonic shock wave to the microphone. The microphone picks it up like that, and then there's the report of the gun which follows a little later. It sounds like an echo. So it goes crack-thump, crack-thump. The crack-thump is a well-known tool that snipers use to estimate how far away somebody is that's shooting at them. If there's a very long distance between the crack and the thump, then your shooter is very far away because the bullet flies faster than the speed of sound. The sound of the explosion of the gun boom starts traveling towards the victim down there or whoever's downrange, but the bullet gets there first and it gets there at supersonic velocity, which means faster than 1100 feet per second, give or take the altitude and conditions. So if anything's traveling faster than the speed of sound, it has a sonic boom crack, right? So that's what we're going to hear. You're going to hear first in this tape, three very clearly distinct crack-thumps, and then things get a little confusing. It gets a little fast, so how do you count all of that? Somebody, whoever put this video together, did the counting. Thank you for that. However, I think there's some room for interpretation here as well about that.
Without any further ado, this is that. Wait, hang on one more. There it was, that last one. Okay, one more time, take a look. What happened? Listen to this. Can you hear that? That's one, two, three. Okay, and then it's hard to unravel what's happening there because we have echoes, we've got them over stacking each other. So there's two supersonic cracks that come in and later the thumps of the gun come in, the crack-thumps. It gets a little tricky to unravel, so let's do that and go there.
First up, I want to give a big shout-out to Mike Adams at Health Ranger. He was out with this within minutes for those first three shots, and clued me into the idea that we really did need to take a look at the other one. So way to go, Mike. Thank you for picking that up and doing that. All right, this is the audio file. I pulled it into a program called Audacity right off of that video, and I find on here nine separate shots. I find three, then a grouping of five, and then one last one out there, number nine. I think this one, this is the sniper shot that looks like it took out Crooks just above the left eyebrow. If you want to go look at those, the gross pictures, right? Obviously, he's all bloody and dead. They have that close-up picture of his face, and you can actually see a wound right about here over the left eyebrow.
So we have those first three shots, then we have the five, and then that last one. I'm not going to worry about the last one as much, but we're going to have to look at these first sets very carefully here. So here is video number one. To orient ourselves, I count off of this video 15.8 seconds from the very first to the very last shot. So the AP article that said Crooks took a shot and was neutralized by snipers within seconds, what they meant was 15.8 seconds, unless I have this story wrong.
Next, we're going to look at these first three shots here so you understand how we can analyze the rest of them. Here is the shot, this is the sonic crack. So that's the bullet, indicated by the blue arrows, and then the report is going to be the black arrow. So that's the crack-thump, crack-thump, crack-thump. And of course, it was the first bullet that nicked Trump's ear. Again, let me get my thing here. Here's what it sounds like.
So now I've just isolated the sound. There it is. Okay, whoops, sorry. One last time, just to make sure we're hearing this right. There's 22 seconds between the crack and the thump. Knowing a little bit about the type of bullet that was used, the caliber of it, and the air conditions, you can estimate the distance of the shooter and how far away the shooter was. That 22-second gap between the crack and the thump is very important because it helps us identify that a gun is being shot from that distance. If there were any other lengths, like if we saw a crack-thump, crack-thump, crack-thump, we would clearly see that that was two separate weapons because assuming the first and the last crack-thumps were the same distance apart. So if there's any variation between the crack and the thump, that's when you say, oh, that's a different weapon. So that's one way. The other way is just the tenor of the sound of the weapon, it doesn't sound different.
Now, this is interesting. This woman here had put up a video on TikTok. I really wish we could get the unaltered, I call it unmolested, I don't need all the words put on there, and it's not a consistent video, so there's edits in there. If it ran from beginning to end, we could tell more, but I'm suspecting that we can tell a lot from it. We're going to bring it up here because this is one of the only videos I know about that shows, I think, the first stand victim getting shot. Here we go.
I'm over on the far right or far left of Trump. These are the same bleachers. Watch the top left. These are the same exact bleachers. These are to the left of Trump. They came those shots. Okay, what I've done here is, so I just want us to look at, I just pulled out that one tiny section. You can clearly see a bullet careening off of this railing up here and it does it with enough force to atomize and vaporize. I think this is an important clue. We'll see. Let's just look at that over and over again. Do you see that? See that? Oops, one more time. Again, you can clearly see this shot happening.
Now, this gentleman, let me get my laser pointer back, this gentleman right here is in a very distinctive American flag shirt of some kind. You can see him hunch over there a little bit, and I'm pretty sure that shot that you see careening off the rail struck him first. The reason I think that struck him first, we showed this before, is from this video that's after the fact. We're on the right side of the stands, you can see he's being brought down, and you can see here he's holding, let me get my laser pointer back, he's holding his right chest. His left arm is coming over, holding that right side of his chest. I don't know the extent of his injuries, I can't find any updates in the media right now, so we're going to be watching out for that. If he was struck in that upper right chest and the bullet still managed to take something off of the railing into a puff, we see a very clear puff there. I don't think that's a 223 round. A 223 round, a little 55 or 62-grain bullet, when they hit, they tend to tumble. This would have to have had enough force to have nicked Trump's ear if I'm right about this being the first shot, nicked his ear, traveled in, struck this gentleman, and still had enough force to vaporize either the railing or that was the bullet itself atomizing. That gray puff was more likely a larger caliber round, but that's a guess, pure hypothesis, pure conjecture. I'm just throwing it out there as a placeholder. That would be more consistent with something like a 308, some 30 caliber sort of a round, something with enough energy to penetrate and still atomize and vaporize on the back railing. Again, just a guess, doesn't matter, just speculation, it's kind of irrelevant.
But again, if we're back here again with my... so I think you can see that puff right there. See that? Oops, sorry. Puff, puff, puff. So he's been hit, and also it's on his right side. If you see how he's oriented, he's all the way up against the back with his right side tipped towards the back. This is as high up as you can get. The other thing I need to point out about that is he is all the way in the highest row of bleacher seats. Those things start roughly at about stage level, which is about 3 and 1/2 to 4 feet in the air, and then they go up level, level, level, level. So if you said it's, I don't know, a foot or foot and a half per level, he's clearly many feet up in the air and he's standing. That bullet that struck him has to be, I don't know, pick a number, 12-15 feet in the air, pretty high up. That's going to become important again in just a second.
So this is plausible for the first shot then. We see here, if the shots came from the rooftop shooter first, then comes across the podium, Trump would have been standing right about there, and could have struck somebody standing in the back right where that gentleman was with the flag shirt who got hit. That's entirely plausible, but it's a little bit more consistent with a rising shot because if we put the podium at about 3 and 1/2 feet, four, we'll call it four, we'll put Trump at 6'3, but take 3 inches off, so 10 feet. That bullet goes whizzing by his ear, but if it's... that's if... that's if... if this is why we need all the trajectories, that's why we need all this mapped out, that's why we need an absolute accounting of every single shot taken. If that was the first shot that struck that gentleman, and that's why if I had that unmolested video, I could piece it in, I could tell you exactly.
So this is just a bunch of conjecture until we have more, but if that gentleman was struck by the same bullet that took Trump's ear, that means that thing must have been on a rising trajectory because Trump's at 10 feet, and then further back, this guy, his chest is probably at 13-14 feet, it's higher in the air. That would have been more consistent with a shot fired from lower down that was then rising instead of a shot fired from the roof, which would have been declining and coming down. I'm giving you this because in a few slides, you're going to see why I'm making a point about this.
So the audio from video one, when we look at it here, the first three shots we can make complete sense of, okay, fine. Then there's a fourth shot that arrives and it does so with the bullet and a report at .212 seconds, close enough for government work here or rough analysis. Here's another bullet and a report. So that's the snap, crack, there's echoes. We see there's echoes. So the bullet makes it and then the sound is echoing, probably off one of the buildings. We have a lot of flat surfaces back there, so the microphone is here, supersonic crack, and the crack makes it to the microphone and then it echoes off something. So we see the crack and an echo. We could probably very, very accurately estimate how far away that flat surface is off of that echo. And then you get the report itself, crack-thump, crack-thump. So shots four and five, I'm still pretty good with shots four and five in terms of being able to make sense of them. From six on, man, it gets all kinds of weird, all kinds of weird, and I'm not going to take you through the weirdness from video one to try and resolve what's happening with those other shots. We're now going to turn to video two. This really clarifies everything and makes the entire case.
So we'll listen to it up through the shots, which is about 20 seconds of tape. I won't take you through all the screaming and everything. And by the way, not for nothing, but screaming. I don't understand people who just start screaming and then just don't stop in an event like this. So listen past this, it's a little... there's a lot of screaming going on. But you can clearly hear shots one, two, and three, and then you can hear the other string of shots that come out. We're going to analyze it, I'll break it down, we'll take a look at it. However, I do want to tell you, pre-stage this a little bit, decide for yourself, do strings one, two, and three sound the same at all compared to the other ones that you hear?
And remember, we already have the analysis from audio experts elsewhere saying there's a difference between Weapon A and Weapon B, and I can show you that the rounds fired from Weapon B were also aimed at the stage. So this is important. Two weapons, one fires a string of three, another fires a string of five or six, depending on how we count, and off they go, and they were also hitting the crowd and headed towards Trump. This is important because now we do not have a lone gunman anymore. So listen up, here we go.
And then that one more. That's the six I'm unclear on. Let's listen to this again.
There was the first shot. And then right, that's what I hear, and a lot of screaming. Okay, so let's analyze this now, let's go into this with a little bit more depth.
So video two, the way I score it, there's about 16.0 seconds from the first to the last shot, so very consistent with what we're experiencing on the first audio, so that's nice, they kind of line up pretty well. And here's the whole audio from all that screaming and the shots from video two. We have in blue the first three shots here, we have more shots here from a second weapon, I'm not sure about this one, it has a very different sound, that's the sixth shot in the string, and then here we have the final last one which I think is the sniper weapon, which is probably the one that put the bullet just over the left eye of Crooks on the roof. We're going to take a closer look at the blue, the red, and the blacks here and listen to these things. But once again, let's just listen very carefully and we'll go back and forth until you're certain of this yourself.
Here's just the first three shots from that video. I haven't done anything, no AI, I haven't done any enhancements. Both of these video audio pieces are exactly pulled straight from the video itself, nothing else. I haven't boosted any, I haven't done any filtering, raw files. And by the way, every instinct in me was to try and minimize all the screaming, but I was like, nope, nope, nope, nope, that just... what did you do? And then there's questions. These are raw files.
Here's one, two, and three to start. Okay, listen to that again. And one more time. Okay, now let's listen to the next string. Hear that? So six sounds different to me, but here's an interesting thing. One, two, and three, besides being muffled and further away, it doesn't have echoes. Here we have... this is a shot here, this peak, darn it, I don't have my thing up again. Here we go. So this here is a shot, this is an echo, very clearly an echo, and a shot, and an echo, and a shot, and an echo. So this is actually critical evidence because you hear that there's echoes coming off, so that also allows us, again, to analyze where was this gun. But first up, we just have an absolutely different sound between the first three, there's no echo, it's much further away, it's more muffled, it's just not in the same place at all. But these next ones, very different sound, totally different weapons.
Full stop, we have two separate weapons, plus we have no echoes coming off of the first three, and then we do have echoes coming off of the next set. And that last one, that's different, and that's not the sniper shot. The sniper shot is another 10 seconds later, so I don't know what number six is here, but we're just going to bookmark it for now and go on.
Audio analysis conducted by Nick tells us that those next string of shots, those one, two, three, four, five, are coming from Shooter, who we're going to call Shooter Two, because Shooter One is sending off those muffled ones. Shooter Two is very consistent with somebody being on the roof firing something with a .223 round. Here, where audio two was recorded from, we've isolated exactly where the person was standing, they were walking, so there's a little movement, but they were basically right here. The echoes we have are perfectly consistent with atmospheric conditions of the day to have bounced off of this building, because that's what you need for an echo, you need a hard, flat surface to echo off of. So that's what we've got, we have an echo that perfectly lines up with somebody being up there in Shooter Number Two's position.
Now, here's where it gets a little weirder. So what I've done, and this is... I've taken the first timeline, this is video number one's audio, and I've lined it up with video number two's audio, and for the most part, we're in pretty darn good shape. Right here, you can see, this is the supersonic crack, so that's the crack of the bullet arriving. And I've lined that up with what I did, I just shifted the timelines to line up with... this is the report of the gun, so the one, two, three, four, five gun, plus the six, right? One, two, three, four, five, six. I've lined up that first blast of the gun with the arrival of the bullet, so it should be consistent because if you have the explosion, the arrival of it downstream, they ought to line up, right? The timings ought to be the same.
So sure enough, shot one, no problemo, lines up perfectly. This is an echo up top there, here's the echo down here for shot one. The top bullet is echoing off of whatever it's echoing up there near the stage, and this is echoing probably off of that building surface we just showed you. So shot one, 100%, we're good to go. Shot two, same thing, lines up perfectly, it's got an echo right here, that's that little peak right there, and it's got an echo up top, everything lines up. Shot three though, remember this is one, two, three, four, five, one, two, three, four, five, six, this one doesn't line up. This one is actually... this shot happens about 0.003 seconds earlier, there's not alignment, it should be right under this peak, but it's not, which means the shot happened 0.3 seconds... it took 0.3 seconds longer for that bullet to get downstream to the microphone in front of the Trump platform there. What does that mean? Well, that means that it's somewhere between, depending on the caliber and... sorry, maybe the caliber, I don't have any bullets here, I can't guarantee anything, depending on a lot of things, the muzzle velocity of whatever this projectile was, and things like that, that 0.3 seconds, assuming it's 2600 feet per second, that's how fast this thing's traveling, could be 2500, could be 3000, I don't know what they're using, so you have to make some guesses, but it's further away. This implies the possibility that shots one and two, those were fired by Crooks, but somebody about 78 to 100 feet further away took shot three. Then shots four and five line up again perfectly, but shot six, hey, that's off the mark again by the same amount, and there's not quite the echoes that are happening off of shot three. We don't see the same... there should be an echo right here, there should be an echo right here, we don't see that, not like these big echoes. So there's a chance here, I'm making a chance, there's a possibility that there were two weapons being fired that are different from the first one. One, two, three are from weapon one, weapon two for sure is in a different spot, but there's a possibility because of those times of weapon three. So it could be that one, two, four, and five were taken by Crooks on the roof because he heard some stuff going on, decided to take his shots, but three and six were taken by somebody else another 100 feet away. I don't know, we're going to need more professional audio analysis, but I like it when everything lines up, and everything does line up until we get to there. And then further down the timeline, things get really weird, and things aren't lining up, but we don't know who's firing down at that end of the spectrum either, so some weird stuff down there, but it doesn't line up really well enough for my taste.
Okay, so hypothesis, what do we have here? Here's the hypothesis: at least two shooters, maybe three, don't know. The first three shots, I suspect, my hypothesis is they came from inside the building, alright? They were inside that... like if Crooks was on the roof, open the window, those shots came in from down below. Why do I think that? Because that ensures that the crack-boom are consistent with the guy on the roof, the angles are the same, the crack-boom isn't off, there's nothing to analyze, right? If those first three shots come out from below Crooks, then it all lines up, right? And this aligns with what we have from video number two's audio where it's more distant, it's a muffled sound, that would be more consistent with being inside. We don't have... it's also the upward slope of that bullet, right? Now that begins to line up. If it's true that that back victim was struck with bullet one and also all the lack of echoes, so everything's consistent with that hypothesis. It's just a hypothesis, I'm just trying to put some meat on the bones of what might have happened here, because I know for a fact we had two guns, period, maybe three. I could make a case for three, I'm not as solid on that, going to wait for expert analysis, but we don't need any further expert analysis to understand there were two weapons being fired at the stage, right? Because here's what happened, these next string of shots down here, which I'm highlighting, this is the recording from video two, this is, sorry, video two's audio two, video two, video one, which is taken from the microphone right at the front where Trump is. These are sonic signatures, so these booms led to these cracks, right? These explosions of this weapon resulted in bullets making sonic booms right over the microphone down at Trump's stage. So let's be clear, these one, two, three, four, five, six, wasn't like, oh, because I can hear it already, they're like, oh well, the Beaver County Emergency Services Unit saw him and climbed up, and really, I guess that's what it was. That's not what it was. This second weapon that was fired, leaving the echoes and that sharper crack, that was fired towards the stands. So we have two shooters, guaranteed, full stop.
In the second group of shots, I'm positive that one, two, four, and five, pretty sure those were fired by Crooks, lines up with everything, the echoes and the snaps recorded downrange, all that. Now shots three and six are puzzling. Again, expert analysis will be required here, not me, I'm just a doof with Audacity and some common sense, but their delayed arrival downrange suggests they were taken 78 to about 95 feet further back than Crook's position. That would be consistent with somebody being on one of those other roofs just behind him, you know, just in case, just in case of a mission failure, I guess, I don't know.
So my conclusions for today: there are at least two distinctly different weapons being fired, at least two. The first three shots further away than the weapons that fired the next five to seven shots because they're muffled. The sonic cracks tell us that everything was fired in Trump's and the audience's direction. That means they weren't taking out Crooks with these shots. This means the lone shooter theory is 100% false, and I can't be the only guy who's done this analysis. How is it possible that we even had CNN saying, oh, you know, experts tell us there were at least two weapons, probably three, three with that last final sniper shot, maybe four. So this tells us that this was a full-on operation. These are the questions that need to be asked. I fear for my safety and everybody else's safety for coming out with this stuff because one thing we know, they don't like loose ends in these stories, but man, they bollocked this operation up really badly. Whoever was in charge of it is probably already floating in a river. I don't know what's going to happen to them because they really messed this operation up. It was sloppy, it left all kinds of traces and signatures, and it's very clear that they should have never held that rally in that location. Everybody I've talked to who's professionally trained, and I'm going to get somebody on the program here to talk about this, you would never do it the way that was set up. The lines of sight were all wrong, there were too many open places, the perimeter was too tight. They had two sniper teams only 40 yards apart? No, you put them really far apart, the perimeter was way too in. Oh yeah, anything out we were in charge of up to 100 yards, you know that 140-yard building, that was the local police. There was a gym that was 400 yards away. Normal perimeter is 4 to 500 yards for an operation like this. So everything stinks to high heaven, we already know that. But it's bizarre to me that we're able to determine here with our Comcast connection that there were at least two weapons, and that's just confirming something that's already out there in the public space. This needs to be talked about, share this as widely as you can. I decided to put all this out public today. There's no further analysis today for my Peak Prosperity subscribers, so this is it. I had to put this all out there.
Hey, happy birthday, John. I love you, brother, and I miss you. With that, thanks very much. We'll see you next time. Share this, please. Get it out there.
RELATED REPORT:
Jovan Pulitzer: "Return Snipers Did NOT Kill Him" -- "There Was A Second Malvo Shooter!"
This is an absolute bombshell report and interview....and for those of you who know me, I don't throw that word around very often because I like it to retain it's meaning and impact.
So I had Jovan Pulitzer back on my show today to discuss a full forensic audit of the Trump shooting.
There's no one better out there to conduct a forensic audit than Jovan, and those of you who know him know that to be true.
The man leaves NO stone unturned and he thinks outside the box most people think in.
So I was fascinated to hear what he had to say about everything....and absolutely blown away by some of his early conclusions.
First up, while I had him I got his quick thoughts on Vice President JD Vance and while I won't go into those in this article, I'll say they very closely matched mine -- and even my process for coming to the same conclusions. So that was nice to see.
Ok now to the shooting....
The first thing I wanted to get off the table quickly was whether or not it was possible this was staged in any way by Team Trump. A "sympathy shooting".
Jovan quickly put that to bed with a firm no.
You can listen to the interview to hear exactly why, but I agree 100%.
So then we started talking about the "Balance of Possibilities" and applying Occam's Razor to come to a theory of what likely happened here.
Jovan says in situations like this he likes to find the "Second Right Answer" meaning (I think) that the answer they give you at first, and the narrative they try to sell you, likely isn't the truth.
So in this case, that means the 20 year old kid being the shooter, and being noticed by people in the crowd, and even confronted by police at one point, and now dead so case closed -- that probably isn't the right answer.
So what is?
Basically, this....
You need to listen to the interview in full (and maybe even twice -- many people are telling me they are listening twice already, that's how big this is becoming), but here's the quick summary....
Jovan does not think the 20 year old kid was the Trump shooter. He was the patsy. Sure, he was allowed to carry the gun up there and get in position and ultimately got blown away. But he wasn't the Trump shooter.
Also, Jovan does not think the Snipers on the rooftop behind Trump are the ones who took out the kid. He says if you look at the pictures of the kid after he was dead, all of the evidence (teeth pointing forward, etc) all suggest the kid was shot from behind.
So where does that leave things?
Simply this: there were at least one and maybe two other shooters.
Hello, grassy knoll! We've got a new JFK.
But it makes total sense.
The kid was a very bad shot, nothing about his story lines up, and it's highly unlikely that even at a (relatively) close distance for most good shooters, that he would make such a perfect shot on Trump.
Remember, it was only by the grace of God that Trump turned his head those 1-2 inches at the exact last moment, otherwise it would have been a PERFECT kill shot.
The trajectory of the bullet also tells a different story, but you have to watch the interview to have Jovan explain that in detail. We went over it multiple times.
In short, Jovan thinks this was the work of an expert gunman farther away.
The kid was the cover story.
The real shots came from the expert sniper farther out.
And then either that sniper or someone else took out the kid, because of course we need a dead assailant to say "case closed!"
And now the kicker.....
Jovan also thinks that second shooter was likely done Malvo-style.
Do you remember Malvo?
The DC shooter?
The guy who they couldn't catch because he shot out of a small hole in the back of his car?
Jovan thinks something exactly like that happened here.
There would be no chance of it being caught on video surveillance or cell phone anywhere. Not out in the open.
Just a Cadillac DeVille perhaps, parked maybe 300 yards out with the perfect line of sight?
Oh my!
I told you this was a bombshell.
Folks, if Jovan is right about even 50% of this, then you have a conspiracy the likes of which could tear this country apart!
But the truth must come out, at all costs.
We talked about a ton more, including Trump body doubles, what Trump should do next, whether Trump immediately goes into a bunker for his 2nd Term, Bitcoin, crypto, the US Dollar, and a lot more!
This was truly one that blew me away, and in no part due to anything I did or said -- this was all my guest and he absolutely blew the lid off this thing.
Please watch here:
Backup on Twitter here:
Incredible chat with Jovan Pulitzer breaking down the Trump shooting..."RETURN SNIPERS DID NOT KILL HIM!"@JovanHPulitzer WATCH HERE pic.twitter.com/QGVAzHIayu
— DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) July 16, 2024
Incredible chat with Jovan Pulitzer breaking down the Trump shooting...
"RETURN SNIPERS DID NOT KILL HIM!"@JovanHPulitzer
WATCH HERE
pic.twitter.com/QGVAzHIayu
— DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) July 16, 2024
If you want more, follow Jovan on Rumble here: https://rumble.com/c/JovanHuttonPulitzer
And Telegram here: https://t.me/JovanHuttonPulitzer
I would really love to hear what you all think!
Please leave a comment below.
And SHARE to get this word out.
Thank you.
And if you missed my last interview with Jovan, you can catch that here -- he's quickly becoming a great new friend:
My EXCLUSIVE Interview With Jovan Pulitzer
A few days ago, I published a look back at the 2020 Election and all the "election fraud" that may or may not have been captured at the time.
One of the leading experts in that work was Jovan Pulitzer, and I re-ran this report to remind people just how much evidence we have already gathered and confirmed:
FLASHBACK: Jovan Pulitzer: It’s Not the ‘Watermarks’ on the Ballots – It’s Better!
I met Jovan in person last year at an event we were both at, and he's truly one of the best people to chat with.
We had an absolute blast chatting about all things politics and really digging into the mechanics of the 2020 Steal....often chatting for 2+ hours in between sessions of the event we were attending.
I told him we needed to have that same chat live on my show and life got in the way and we never made it happen...until now.
When he saw me run that article above, he reached out and we finally connected to do this chat live on my show!
And I am SO EXCITED to show it to you!
We went for almost 3 hours and I was absolutely fascinated all the way through. The time flew by!
I have multiple pages of notes, but here are some highlights:
We talked about his Christmas 2023 visit to Mar-a-Lago and his meeting with President Trump in his secret back office.
People, Paper, Programs -- he explains what this means in the interview.
We talked about the results of his Arizona audit (440,000 discrepancies out of 2,000,000 votes, and 70/30 of those swinging to Biden!)
Voter Fraud vs. Election Fraud
Is it "watermarks" or something much more?
20 different factors!
The "stochastic pixel"
We spent a lot of time talking about Jovan's incredible inventions and patents (you have no idea all this man has done!)
And a ton more!
We also talked about his two books, which I will put links for down below.
I then asked him the million dollar question: if they stole it in 2020, what will stop them from stealing it again in 2024?
The answer is something every single patriot needs to hear right now.
At the end, we did a rapid fire set of questions where I asked him "White hat or Black hat".....
Vivek
Elon Musk
Kash Patel
Kari Lake
General Flynn
And many more.....
He answered almost all of them, with a few surprises!
Only a few he didn't answer if he didn't have enough personal interactions on which to base an opinion.
I think you're really going to love this.
Please enjoy:
Backup on Twitter here if needed:
? EXCLUSIVE: Jovan Pulitzer Explains How He Caught Them All In Arizona! (Watermarked Ballots?)#DailyTruthReport@JovanHPulitzer
Such an amazing time chatting with Jovan Pulitzer today....
Please enjoy!
⭐ Countdown to Chaos (Paperback): https://t.co/kxilJB969j
⭐ Food… pic.twitter.com/edWPLn7orn
— DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) June 29, 2024
Full video player:
EXCLUSIVE: Jovan Pulitzer Explains How He Caught Them All In Arizona! (Watermarked Ballots?)#DailyTruthReport@JovanHPulitzer
Such an amazing time chatting with Jovan Pulitzer today....
Please enjoy!
Countdown to Chaos (Paperback): https://t.co/kxilJB969j
Food… pic.twitter.com/edWPLn7orn
— DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) June 29, 2024
And here are the links you need:
Countdown to Chaos (Paperback): https://amzn.to/4cDlrj6
Food Forest Bible (Paperback): https://amzn.to/4coEaPU
Food Forest Bible (Hardcover): https://amzn.to/4eJXqbZ
Follow Jovan Pulitzer on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/JovanHuttonPulitzer
It was a real blast and I hope everyone will help me share this far and wide....we all need to jump in and help before the November 2024 election. It's our only chance.
We plan to do another show in a few months and this time talk about the Invention Secrecy Act of 1952 and how much technology the government is currently hiding from us.
Spoiler alert: it's a lot!
Thanks for watching!
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
