This analysis is a follow-up to the initial analysis: TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT: Initial Analysis Indicates Internal Security Breach and Stand-down.

The analysis is supported by the archive page: ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON TRUMP.

INITIAL ANALYSIS/FINDINGS

Here, the findings of the initial analysis are reproduced for the necessary contextual backdrop:

---

The INITIAL ANALYSIS holds that the Trump assassination attempt presents as an Intelligence Community operation executed by DHS/USSS functionaries in a forced internal security breach caused by the insertion of irregular personnel to the Executive protection detail.

The mode of operations was a stand-down to a trigger man identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks and complicated by assertions and loose anecdotal evidence of an alternative shooter in Maxwell Yearick.

The stand-down took the from of breaking strict protocol within the 2-man counter-sniper operations in permitting an identified threat and plausible shooter armed with a rifle to advance on President Trump from an elevated rooftop position approximately 400 ft. away and in effectively close range to acquire Trump as a target and engage the former President firing no fewer than 3 rounds.

Video evidence clearly indicates that although the threat had been acquired, the counter-sniper counterstrike did not commence until the shooter first engaged his target.

The considerations about the actions of Joe Biden and the issued pretext are loosely anecdotal evidence but they are valid considerations against the backdrop of the remaining evidence; and they are backed by demonstrable and factual history.

The considerations about the Intelligence Community narrative of “shooting” v. “assassination” are valid.

This is despite a now intermixing of the two; remembering that “shooting” is an inadequate descriptor to be excluded except as a verb including other tenses like “shot,” but where the “shooting” narrative or versions of it prevail in the reporting.

The considerations about site and venue Executive security and the Executive protection detail are valid.

The considerations about ongoing DOJ/FBI cover and concealment operations in the form of an FBI investigation ordered by Biden are valid and represent a grossly repeating pattern within the broader DOJ under AG Merrick Garland.

The considerations about the “domestic terrorism” application to the FBI investigation and the legal architecture into which it precisely fits are entirely valid.

---

NEW DEVELOPMENTS

The initial analysis is supported and confirmed by new developments in several domains.

Executive Protection Detail & Site Security

The crux of the analysis relative to the US Secret Service, its Executive protection detail, site security and in particular, the performance of the USSS’ 2-man counter-sniper teams being characterized as “oversight,” “incompetence,” “errors” and “mistakes” remains on extremely firm ground where the initial analysis positioned those instances as “designed omissions.”

The crux of the analysis is validated by this expert testimony from Dallas Alexander, a former Canadian military sniper specializing in executive protection who is a part of the team with the longest sniper kill shot on record.

Emphasis was added to Alexander’s testimony:

I’m a retired sniper so because I’ve been asked so many times here’s my opinion on the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump.

I spent just about 17 years in the military, 14 of which, just about 14 of which we’re at a tier one special operations unit called JTF2. Our sniper team has the world record for the longest confirmed sniper kill. A huge part of our job while I was there and while I was a sniper was doing close protection for VIPs up to and including the Prime Minister, when he would go to dangerous countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, we would be in charge of that security.

I’m very familiar with the layout of these types of things and what the jobs should be. And yesterday, what happened, I have no doubt in my mind that the shooter had help from somewhere within an agency, an organization, or the government.

The second I saw that aerial photo of what they were saying happened, it immediately made no sense to me. You cannot, in broad daylight, get onto a rooftop within what looked like maybe a couple of hundred yards. You can’t get into that position with a gun when there’s a president speaking. It cannot be done. You don’t even need to be a sniper to know that it’s the most f—king obvious thing, the most obvious place in the whole world.

So something happened, and I’m not pointing fingers at anyone. It’s too obvious that this guy had help getting there. So whether someone turned a blind eye or it was strategically planned, I mean, it had to be planned to a certain level because events like that and security like that, it’s not a small thing. And that is the most obvious place to be.

I find it very strange that if the story that comes out is like, ‘Oh, yeah, he snuck into position and he got set up and nobody saw him. It was an oversight, security, and overwatch, and we just made a mistake. Sorry.’

“I think it’s also very weird that if that’s the case and someone is good enough to stalk within 150-200 yards of one of the hardest to stalk targets in the whole world, you’re not going to miss a shot. You’re not going to miss that shot. If you have the skillset to get in there, avoiding all these layers of security, then you will have the skillset to hit that first round. It doesn’t make any sense.”

“My opinion is, and whether this comes out now or way later, is that this guy had help from somewhere. I think that’s obviously concerning. It’s going to be wild. I think it’s all you’re going to see for the next little while. Anyway, just because I keep getting asked, that’s my two cents.”

As positioned in the immediate and initial analysis, a modicum of familiarity with USSS Executive protection is all that’s needed to dismiss fully and outright any nonsensical arguments over incompetence, oversight or similar.

The initial analysis included the following exactly as Alexander confirmed:

Once familiar with those operations where every humanly imaginable variable for an Executive visit is accounted for and outright controlled, the types of “errors” and “mistakes” made at the Trump event simply cannot be attributed to “errors” and “mistakes,” which they are generally reporting as “oversights” and “incompetence.”

This is because Occam’s does not allow it and neither should anyone else with an objective and clear mind and a rudimentary understanding of USSS Executive protection.

[…]

There are exactly zero occasions ever that any USSS agent and especially a USSS counter-sniper would permit an unknown individual located on a rooftop and armed with a rifle to army crawl or otherwise advance on the Executive and then not engage to neutralize him.

Never ever, full-stop.

That the counter-snipers had eyes on Trump’s shooter for extended time; that the snipers took second to third looks both in and out of optics in their delayed determination to neutralize; that the snipers permitted the shooter to fire first and sen no fewer than 3 rounds; all stand counter to their duty, training, orders and Occam’s.

[…]

This is not incompetence or similar but rather a deliberate stand-down to an identified and armed potential shooter on a rooftop within moderately close range that was made known to the USSS, not neutralized and first permitted to engage his target, President Trump, before then being neutralized.

In short, it’s evidence of an internal security breach indicative of an inside job that is being obfuscated and covered by the narrative story of unfamiliar substitute agents who committed “oversights,” “mistakes” and “errors.”

With respect to this domain, there is no alternate plausible explanation beyond what is put forth in the immediate and initial analysis.

The Ladder

In private dialogue with the Marco Polo group early this morning, I stated the following: “Determining the valid from the invalid is going to be difficult. Already we have a substitute JV USSS squad, 2 different ladders, an apparent shot from a farther distance [audibly] perhaps from a water tower, a trigger man, an alleged alternative shooter, a patsy, a second patsy, a compromised FBI and a compromised Executive that ordered the FBI’s investigation. Other than that, it’s all a clear as mud.”

This is the ladder in question from the initial analysis:

A report from CNN both clarifies and complicates the presence of the ladder found positioned adjacent to the Crooks rooftop.

The report states in part [emphasis added]:

In the 48 hours before he opened fire on former President Donald Trump, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks made a series of stops in and around his suburban Pittsburgh hometown.

On Friday, he went to a shooting range where he was a member, and practiced firing, a law enforcement official told CNN. The next morning, Crooks went to a Home Depot, where he bought a five-foot ladder, and a gun store, where he purchased 50 rounds of ammunition, the official said.

Then, Crooks drove his Hyundai Sonata about an hour north, joining thousands of people from around the region who flocked to Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He parked the car outside the rally, with an improvised explosive device hidden in the trunk that was wired to a transmitter he carried, the official said. Then, investigators believe, he used his newly-bought ladder to scale a nearby building, and opened fire on the former president.

All of that is impossible for these reasons that require us to dismiss aspects of the report as constructed narrative pushed-out by the Intelligence Community to craft its cover-up and concealment operation being conducted by a wholesale unreliable and compromised FBI under orders from Joe Biden.

We begin with the ladder itself.

By all appearances, Crooks was an average sized man likely between 5’6″ and 6′ tall and so we can measure against that.

We can also measure against standards for commercial buildings and ladders where including the top, ladders normally contain the same number of rungs as feet tall meaning 5 feet, 5 rungs, etc.

The overlay is Crooks Hyundai Sonata he was said to not only be driving for the commission of the attempted assassination, but which contained explosives tied to a remote switch on his person and the same for his home.

Note that no picture of Crooks’ actual vehicle could be located.

The illustration below makes the case that the entire narrative surrounding the “five-foot ladder” should be dismissed on its face for being blatant disinformation.

It’s a very particular and overly detailed talking point – noting a “five-foot ladder” – until the vehicle is reconciled.

A 5-foot ladder is the largest sized ladder that fits the narrative because of the car fact set.

They’re hoping that people won’t do what I’ve done below.

They’re trying to fool us on the size of the ladder rather than convince us that this car below somehow breached an established USSS perimeter with a rifle and ammo on board to accessorize the driver’s pseudo military looking apparel [noting this is not Crooks or his vehicle but an online image depicting how entirely and utterly ridiculous this information is (it’s also a bigger ladder because surprisingly, there were few to choose from, indicating that people don’t do this very often meaning that it’s a neon sign saying to the USSS, “Shooter inside!”].

They’re telling you that the most highly effective, educated, trained and skilled Executive protection force in the world let a car like this into a perimeter secured for the Executive so the driver could assume a rooftop position at approximately 400 ft. to advance on the Executive unimpeded to send at least three rounds before any intervention of any kind occurred.

And that it’s a “mistake,” an “error,” an “omission” or “oversight.”

This infers that he drove in and dropped-off the ladder and if not, it means he breached the USSS perimeter carrying a rifle and a ladder.

You could think for a month of Sundays and not arrive at a dumber statement than that.

Contrasted that against the totality of everything laid-out in the initial analysis along with the following details on the ladder, and it’s so bad that if Crooks rolled-up accordingly, he also likely said, “I’m here to kill the President, can you please tell me where to set-up?”

That contrast demonstrates how profoundly stupid this narrative is and how profoundly stupid people have to be to believe it [substitute ignorant as needed for the smart stupid people].

Their insurance policy to hedge against criticism and push back against it was sending replacement agents to relieve a significant portion of the regular Executive detail and it was packed with a cohort of incompetent women and others.

For anyone caring to argue the point of the women, please watch the footage on the archive page.

Unfortunately for the Intelligence Community, the ladder doesn’t fit against the dimensions of the building or with the dimensions of the car unless it’s strapped to the exterior or coming out of a opened trunk; and there is a zero percent chance ever that such a car could effectively breach an established USSS perimeter.

So they lied about the size of the ladder to accommodate the narrative.

There was no “five-foot ladder” and that’s not a “mistake,” “error,” “oversight” or other; just deliberate disinformation to adhere to a strict narrative.

Occam’s tells us the ladder was placed for Crooks either as it’s pictured or otherwise made accessible so that he could place it himself.

Occam’s also tells us that authorities should be scouring surveillance footage to see if any utility vehicle/worker was associated with the ladder or its placement.

Occam’s says that the most likely source of the ladder is the building under the roof from which Crooks shot [or the attached or adjacent building].

That delivers this which was forwarded by “Wall St.” and quoting it: “Jesse Watters told us to dig on the building. So I did. It is owned by AGR, or American Glass Research. They specialize in the manufacturing of various glass products. They were bought out by Indicor in March. Indicor’s CEO is Doug Wright, whom used to work for Raytheon and Ingersoll Rand. (Raytheon is a former defense contractor with much shadiness attached). He also used to work for Honeywell. Honeywell & Raytheon both refused to donate to anyone voting against certifying Biden on J6: https://defensenews.com/congress/2021/06/04/defense-firms-quietly-resume-political-giving-after-post-insurrection-pause/ I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Soro’s Tweet featured a pic of broken glass, and the would be assassin fired from the top of a damn glass factory.”

*Link

That, in turn, brings us to the following in reference to the Soros citation in the above post.

Note that this is very loose anecdotal evidence if evidence at all but it is highly peculiar without doubt:

*Link

This is the original Alex Soros post [linked in the above post]:

Second Alternative Shooter

The second alternative shooter was alleged to be Maxwell Yearick.

Any public appearance by Yearick could immediately put this issue to rest; has anyone seen him since 13 Jul 24?

A position on a second alternative shooter beyond the Maxwell Yearick details has emerged.

There is a distinction, though.

Yearick was asserted as an alternative shooter to be the actual shooter replacing Crooks.

Whether the shooter was Yearick, Crooks or someone else, the new development inserts a second alternative shooter to augment the first; meaning there were two shooters firing at the same time; so an additional shooter.

It all has a very “grassy knoll” feel to it because we’re being deliberately misled in cover and concealment operations.

Moonshine contributor @MoonShanghai stated in private dialogue last evening that an audible detection indicates a plausible second [additional] shooter from the likely elevated position of an adjacent water tower.

No further information is available at the time and follow-up is ongoing.

Here is another overhead to compare against the original indicating the water tower’s location relative to Crooks and Trump.

Here is the original from the initial analysis.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

With every legitimate thread pulled and they appear to be plentiful, this entire carnival of death will continue to unravel.

Please be warned and it’s something to keep a close eye on: If in fact the Trump assassination attempt is or appears to be nearing a point of being formally attributed to bad actors inside the overarching apparatus, the more intense the backlash becomes.

As the backlash intensifies, it will broaden to envelop more loosely involved others moving concentrically outward from intimate involvement to truth-tellers and so forth.

The backlash will broaden as needed until a desired level of control is reestablished and things have mostly normalized as they define it.

If required, the backlash will certainly include the next attempt on Trump and they will succeed because they can’t afford not to.

Trump knows this.

We all do to some level.

This means that the next operation will be of a magnitude much greater with a minimum failure risk.

Things like explosions, structural collapses, “collateral damage” within a catastrophic attack, health issue, poisoning, “terrorist” attack, something unknown or even another sniper attack likely to come from an entire team of assassins all come to mind; and that list is far from complete.

Things like secondary operations within a first operation and for example, the first operation being a structural collapse and fire with a the second operation being assassination delivered by a team embedded in the emergency response personnel.

The headlines would read that Trump succumbed to his injuries as a result of the collapse and fire.

Overlay that with the considerations about parlaying the failed assassination on Trump into an attempt on Biden for the reasons positioned in the initial analysis; and the outcomes they deliver, because they all factor-in.

Please stay tuned for the second follow-up.

Please consider actively engaging on Xwitter and other platforms to post and re-post in an effort to combat heavy shadow-/ghost-banning.

Consider that earlier this morning, I said this to “Wall St.” about the initial analysis article as posted on Twitter: “has been up for 9 hours… 381 people have seen it…. 22,619 have not.”

Thank you and thank you taking time to read the analysis.

-End-