CathInfo.com

oops.

Around minute 10:18, Guiffre suggests that we employ the investigative standard of one Hercule Poirot: Who had the motive? Who had the means? Who had the opportunity?

Great idea, but then he immediately applies the standard to Trump, skipping all of the necessary preliminary steps that are required in such a demonstration. That’s a screaming logical flaw!

The question presented is: Was the assassination attempt real?

If we are going to apply the Herculean standard to the analysis of this question, then we must begin with the official narrative. In order to unravel and untangle the mess, we need to start somewhere; and there is no better place to start than the official narrative. That must be subjected to the first test.

Now the official narrative states that a lone gunman, with no agency help whatsoever, planned to αssαssιnαtҽ Trump; that he chose the means; that he took the necessary steps to apply the means and achieve the end; that he succeeded; that he only grazed Trump’s ear; and that he was shot by the government after he fired his weapon.

Given the logical exigency of beginning to answer the question by applying the Herculean standard to the official narrative, it follows that we must first apply the standard to the alleged shooter. Did the shooter have a motive? Did he have the means and the opportunity? Trump has nothing to do with this. Guiffre jumped the logical gun.

Now, if we apply the standard to the narrative, and everything lines up, then we have a decent case for a real assassination attempt.

Taken from the perspective of a real criminal, a lone shooter on a rooftop, acting for himself, according to the published narrative:

1. Who Had the Motive? This one is easy. The shooter was crazy, deranged, libtard, on drugs, on the spectrum, abused as a child, soy boy, manic-depressive, suicidal, closet ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, projection syndrome, mom made him read Q-anon posts until he vomited, dad made him dye his hair orange, had no date for the prom, etc., etc.

2. Who Had the Means? Ahhhhhhhh, now we are getting somewhere.

Restatement of the official narrative: A lone gunman, acting on his own and without agency support, got himself positioned on an unguarded and non-surveilled roof, took a shot at Trump, and grazed his ear with a bullet.

Incontrovertible Facts:

Planning Stage: The alleged crime was one of supreme premeditation. The lone gunman had to make extensive and detailed plans. He had to carefully choose the means, because, let’s face it, getting through SS to rip off a shot at a president ain’t easy. He had to consider several serious and foreseeable obstacles in his formulation of the means. We may say in Thomistic terms, that the commission of such a crime is an arduous thing.

- Obstacle A: The state and local police details would cover a vast amount of area, including outside the perimeters. There would be plenty of plainclothesmen, agency personnel, and members of the public milling around. This would make it virtually impossible for a man carrying a ladder and a rifle to access a cloesby roof. If the plan was not to carry these things, but to stow them for later retrieval, it is still near impossible that he would be able to go undetected while he set up the ladder and climbed up to the roof, with a rifle on his back.

This obstacle is foreseeable, and would absolutely impact the choice of means. It makes the means adopted by the lone gunman practically impossible, and the choosing of said means supremely irrational. If the end of the lone gunman is according to the narrative, then he chose an impossible means of achieving it, the impossibility of which was reasonably foreseeable. It does not matter that according to the narrative he succeeded. We are here considering the choice of means undertaken during the planning stage.

- Obstacle B: There were snipers on the surrounding roofs. This fact would be reasonably foreseeable to one planning to murder a politico from a rooftop perch.

- Obstacle C: There were people with cell phones dispersed throughout the area, and who had a direct line of sight to the lone gunman, not only while he was positioned on the roof, but throughout the course of his local preparatory activity. This fact would also be reasonably foreseeable to one planning to murder a politico from a building located in a public campgrounds. [As an aside, given how many people allegedly saw the man on the rooftop, why is there not tons of cell phone footage of him moving about, climbing, etc.?]

All of the obstacles taken together - the concentration and diffusion of law enforcement personnel, the innumerable members of the cellphone-addicted public milling around, the well-positioned snipers - make getting through the gauntlet, positioning oneself on a nearby roof, and getting off a shot, practically impossible. All of this would be reasonably foreseeable to anyone planning an assassination. A capable planner would comprehend that the obstacles are insurmountable, and that he must choose another means.

One may counterexample that he did, in fact, chose this means, and that he did, in fact, succeed. He got through the gauntlet, positioned the ladder, got on top of the roof, and fired a shot that hit Trump. Therefore the obstacles were not, in fact, insurmountable.

I would reply that before he undertook to complete the crime, he planned it. If we apply the Herculean standard: Who had the means?, then we cannot ignore the planning stage. The choosing of the means is identical to who had the means. A reasonable person, comprehending the obstacles, would choose another means. Or, to put it negatively, no reasonable man, intent upon accomplishing his end, would ever choose these means, given the insurmountable obstacles.

Not only are the obstacles materially insurmountable, but that someone actually premeditated and chose a means precluded by such obstacles, is logically impossible. For even if he planned a ѕυιcιdє by sniper, it is foreseeable that he would never get to the roof by his own unaided efforts.

It is not possible that anyone seriously premeditating to shoot Trump would choose this means.

Therefore, this lone gunman of the narrative must be excluded as “he who had the means.”

3. Who Had the Opportunity? The answer to the question, who had the means, goes doubly for an answer to, who had the opportunity?

Conclusion: The lone gunman narrative is not supported by either the factual or the logical evidence. Though we cannot exclude the lone gunman as he who had a motive, we can exclude him as he who had the means and the opportunity. Therefore the lone gunman narrative must be rejected as false.

Never forget that Trump is pushing the lone gunman narrative. That means Trump is pushing a lie. The fact that Trump is lying to the public, while summoning their allegiance to him, while soliciting their blind consent, is very plausibly the exact reason they are memory-holing this bit of fake news. They want to move past it, lest more than a few people thoroughly analyze it.

Do ye not think that the gigantic “watch the birdie” in Paris was integrally connected to the July Circuses in the USA, freemasonic France’s dearest sister? Someone mentioned that one of the monsters in the sacrilegious ritual resembled the statue of liberty. Hmmm. Is it not plausible that both the RNC debacle and the Olympic debacle were precision timed to get the public's attention off the alleged shooting? Both the RNC and the Olympics were powerful hypnotic diversions.

The unequivocal truth is that the Trump assassination event was coordinated, planned, staged, and scripted. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt. Who done it, has not been proved. That’s an open question. But lone gunman is not an open question. The official narrative is, conclusively, absolute deception.