Believer asks what are chances a bullet pierced Trump’s ear, caused minimal bleeding, and missed his head while fulfilling “mortal wound” and “bondslave” prophecies
Believer asks what are chances a bullet pierced Trump’s ear, caused minimal bleeding, and missed his head while fulfilling “mortal wound” and “bondslave” prophecies
Great information. I still have questions about whether Trump was involved in the staging of all this. The simple fact that his hand had no blood on it after the supposed shot seems so unrealistic. And he specifically said in his RNC speech and FOX interview that he had blood all over his hand. That does not seem to be true. The video shows him with his fist and open hand with no blood on hand. Any thoughts on this?
I think Trump was in on this staged “ear hit,” but he was not in charge of it. Rather, it was likely [redacted] military intelligence, just as for 9/11, which planned and executed the operation.
I couldn't explain the lack of blood on his hand, but all other signs point to Trump being shot.
I would think that it could have happened like this: Trump turns his head and the bullet just grazed his ear only minimal. He reflexively reached there before the blood came out. At that moment he realized that a shot had been fired and let himself fall. Both hands were pointing to the ground to catch himself. The blood shot out of his ear and ran down his cheek. In the shock he would not even know where he was injured. Then he left the stage with the security guards. The blood therefore does not necessarily have to be on his hand.
Are folks still assuming there was only one shooter? What if the security lapse was due to buget cuts, lowering of standards of personnel fitness (mental and physical)? What if one in the crowd was a media person with credentials? Why did CNN live stream this rally and not others? Are folks seeking video and first hand accounts from eye witnessess? We have a duty to continue to ask questions and seek information.
I am still learning more. I think it is dangerous to assume this was some type of ritual or annoiting. That is a bit to base for me.
I do not believe thiis is a war between Gog and Magog, This is a war for humanity. We will be taken down to our lowest to learn a lesson that only God can deliver to us.
"God will take us to the point of destruction because then and only then God will teach us the great lesson. That’s the way he does it."
No one race, religion or ethinicity is above another. It is dangerous to elevate a man to a positon only God is priviliged to hold.
"...So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use.
17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord.
22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
(a) where there people actually shot? YES, very likely
(b) were there shots fired in Trump's direction? YES, very likely
(c) could not aiming at Trump's head conceivably result in an ear wound? YES, with likelihood reflected as a spatial probability distribution centered on DJT's head
(d) would pulling off a theatrical wounding not introduce risks of exposure? YES
CONCLUSION: By strong inference, the faking of the would would be--without further evidence--appear implausible.
NOTE: Contrary to the disparaging and condescending tone of some remarks on the internet by those convinced that this was enirely (or partially) theatrical, I am not a "true believer." I am open to the possibility of a complete theatrical job if you provide even some physical evidence.
Dr. Hill, I do not see this in terms of "burden of evidence." That is a legal term. Scientific investigations do not flow from juridical standards of evidence---for good reason. And further, let me take your own reply and turn it around: "We don’t see sufficient or coherent evidence of the absence of an ear wound, just a lot of people saying it." See, there is nothing in the rules of logic that give this statement preeminence over its converse.
Perhaps advancing our common pursuit of what really went on, I would ask you to address the few items (a through d) that I enumerated above. When I taught a logic & critical thinking course, I would ask the students to take an issue of their choosing and develop one (or more) counterarguments. Good philosophy classes and law school professors do this. So do scientists in developing, maintaining and ruling out when possible, multiple working hypotheses.
I can, in fact, imagine that view we saw of Trump's alleged wound if there was concommitant tissue maceration and, thus, rapid clotting. The maceration would make more likely accelerated induction of the clotting cascade---unlike a clean kitchen or shaving wound. Regardless, I think that you and I are agreed that where this is a real wound, or a simiulated wound, we are considering what is (or is made to appear to be) a very slight wound.
It is okay to approach a problem with a pre-filter (sample-selecting bias) as long as one goes back and accounts for counter interpretations.
While legal and scientific evidential burdens aren’t identical (e.g., there is no “burden shifting” in science as in a court case), they are similar in terms of the assertion-presenting person’s needing to demonstrate sufficiency of evidence (burden of persuasion).
As you’re aware, a scientific assertion that “drug A effectively treats disease B” — negating the null hypothesis — has a different character for regulators and journal editors than “there’s no evidence drug A does not effectively treat disease B,” which might invite a conclusion that the null hypothesis is false without demonstrating so.
Yes, Sir. there are Type I and Type II errors. And in pharmacology, it can get very difficult. All drugs, probably have potential (to varying degree) to both help and to harm depending on a myriad of factors. In a sense, the nature of a new drug--its good and its bad--does not exist until it has been applied to many subjects---ultimately the target human population, though much can be learned from other animals. Monitoring that statistically as data emerges coming from doctors, patients and actuarial analysts, is no small feat.
The establishing of the more-or-less concrete events of historical or physical haqppenings is much more tractable to signal transduction and simpler testing of hypotheses (t-tests, Chi-squared, and non-parametric tests also.)
For instance, I am confident that there is a way to test what we need to know, even now.
And if you would, again, please address the four points--a, b, c, and d--that I made in a post earlier.
(a) “were there people actually shot? YES, very likely”
Agreed.
(b) “were there shots fired in Trump's direction? YES, very likely”
In his general direction, yes. Directly at him, no, not in this staged scenario.
(c) “could not aiming at Trump's head conceivably result in an ear wound? YES, with likelihood reflected as a spatial probability distribution centered on DJT's head”
I haven’t seen evidence anyone fired directly at Trump. This appears a staged operation to trick people by making it look like Trump’s right ear was “pierced,” thereby fulfilling “prophecy.”
(d) “would pulling off a theatrical wounding not introduce risks of exposure? YES”
Thank you, Dr. Hill. The items you listed as seven (and then nine) signs that Trump's assassination was faked. Every one of those things does raise suspicions---but they do so in the category of motivation and opportunity. What those seven or nine items possess--then--are various degrees of circumstantial suspicion, if not evidence. But what these circumstantial factors of lack at this stage, however, is probative quality. These cited items--do raise an eyebrow (and curiosity), nonetheless. This is why I say that I was--and still am--open to real evidence that demonstrates the act of fakery involving the ear wound. I am very curious about images that we will see of the right ear of Mr. Trump as we approach a month or more.
Of course deaths can be faked. Many deaths throughout history have been faked and faked for all sorts of reasons. The question is, "Were deaths faked in the case of the July 13, 2024-Trump Rally in Butler, Pennsylvania?" If one insists that the answer is "yes," then positive evidence must be offered in sufficient detail that deaths were faked. This cannot just be the kind of argument that since something is possible, or imaginable, therefore it is the case.
"This cannot just be the kind of argument that since something is possible, or imaginable, therefore it is the case." you're actually doing the same thing, only in your case, you're unwarily reversing it giving the benefit of doubt to the media who are the ones dictating that ex-fireman died. you're saying, "because it's possible he died, let's give that information the benefit." ...um, anything is possible, buddy, you need use occam's razor in these situations, but that requires common sense...
your logic is utter trash. if it "can" be faked, and slowpokes like yourself believe it's real, then guess what the deep state does? you're incredibly naive, but here you go, exhaustive detail you would never be able to write yourself... hopefully it's not too much of a read for you: https://mileswmathis.com/crooks.pdf
Thank you Dr.Hill.God Bless*. Americans need to raise the standard of pure objectification..disallow trolls..reject all sclerotic..disruptive..free floating flame throwing digital soldier lunacy..as we all used to know..all who believe lies will eventually ..irrevocably..inexorably.....go..insane**
I’d guess the chance of that bullet doing that special kind of fancy dancing is about the same as Trump having no clue Operation Warp Speed was deadly.
This is a very intriguing discussion. Some have compared the DJT event in question with Revelation 13:3. Any comparisons between the alleged wounding of DJT and Revelation (Apocalypse) 13:3 in which the first beast rising out of the sea (traditionally identified as the antichrist) is seemingly fatally wounded and then unexpectedly healed, is untenable. That is the case irrespective of which translation/version of the Bible one considers, e.g.:
"And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.", (Rev. 13:3, King James Version [KJV]).
"One of the beast’s heads looked like it had sustained a mortal wound, but its fatal wound was healed. Rapt with amazement, the whole world followed the beast.", (Rev. 13:3, International Standard Version [ISV]).
"One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.", (New International Version [NIV]).
"One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its (the beast) mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth followed the beast with wonder,", (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition [RSVCE]).
In Revelation 13:3 the wound only appeared to be fatal but was not, meaning, it was part of a deception, a trick to make it appear to be fatal when it wasn't. The context makes it clear some kind of wound actually occurred. The reader is to understand that whatever happened was clouded in deceit.
The question with respect to DJT is whether anything physical at all happened to his ear (if a gunshot induced physical wound occurred that day, forensic proof of it could easily be produced that would satisfy any properly constituted legal tribunal). No one alleges that it appeared to be fatal. The comparison between the DJT event in question and Revelation 13:3 is therefore inappropriate. Bear in mind, if such a comparison is thought to be valid, then DJT is being identified with or at least compared to the AC (irrespective of whether any other evidence exists in support of that contention or not). Only those who think or want DJT to be the AC would find such a comparison appealing.
There are really only three possibilities, 1) an actual assassination attempt was made and those responsible for preventing it and securing DJT were hopelessly incompetent. 2) an actual assassination attempt was made and those responsible for preventing it were complicit in it. 3) No actual assassination attempt was made. Instead, the event was staged in order to make people think an actual assassination attempt had occurred. All relevant evidence should be collected and analyzed in light of these three hypothetical scenarios/possibilities to ascertain closeness of fit by an independent investigation where none of the participants have any actual or potential conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the probability of that happening is estimated to be zero.
This is absurd because you are letting a LLM which is a fool's simulacrum of intelligence, multiply probabilities containing invalid and even contradictory assumptions.
1) "Allowing president to stand": we have multiple documented instances of malfeasance on the part of SS which make this additional violation of protocol unsurprising.
2) the shooter was not unidentified but by multiple reports identified minutes before shots taken. Where is the assumption baked-into the estimate supported?
3) the estimate of hitting the ear is based on the assumption that hitting the ear and not the head was intentional. Is this the case you want to present here and if so why don't you mention it?
Even legitimate attempts at analysis of the event are confounded by the fact that any deep state coordination of such can be expected to include planted misinformation. Do we know that the eyewitness reports put to video minutes after the event are real? Which ones? Is the audio of shots fired presented to us true?
I've deleted the rest of my comments out of respect for your past work.
Thank you for your comment and for being a reader.
I’m not relying on the above LLM (ChatGPT-4) analysis, done by someone else. But it underscores the need to multiply separate probabilities of independent events resulting in what we observed.
1) "Allowing president to stand: We have multiple documented instances of malfeasance on the part of SS which make this additional violation of protocol unsurprising.”
This is true, but any such original malfeasance is expected to have a low probability.
Secret Service protocol breaks are ordinarily improbable and associated with corruption and assassination.
Example: An agent was evidently ordered to stand down from JFK’s motorcade right before assassination: https://youtu.be/yS7XIWnsZTI
Such protocol violations could occur with real assassinations or staged attempts in which some Secret Service leaders or agents participate.
2) “The shooter was not unidentified but by multiple reports identified minutes before shots taken. Where is the assumption baked-into the estimate supported?”
It appears the LLM query was based on Secret Service Director Cheatle saying they did not identify the shooter as a “threat” until he was already on the roof with a rifle and, according to FBI Director Wray’s testimony this week, did not shoot him until after he fired at least eight shots.
This would be expected to be improbable under ordinary circumstances of Secret Service protection.
3) “The estimate of hitting the ear is based on the assumption that hitting the ear and not the head was intentional. Is this the case you want to present here and if so why don't you mention it?”
The LLM query is not mine, and I think, based on evidence presented, the odds of Trump’s ear being hit, barely bleeding, and not his head, are lower than the 1 in 1 trillion estimated by ChatGPT.
My contention is Trump’s ear was not hit and that he was never intentionally shot at. Rather, shots were fired into the crowd, killing and injuring bystanders, as part of a staged event made to look like an assassination attempt.
“Do we know that the eyewitness reports put to video minutes after the event are real? Which ones? Is the audio of shots fired presented to us true?”
Good points. It’s hard to know what’s true. But the burden of persuasion and evidence production demonstrating an ear “hit” lies with those presenting that case. Thus far, they’ve failed.
From what I have read, it is regular folks who want DJT back in office. It certainly is not the ones who commit horrid crimes against innocent children and use us for their experiments.
What happened with the towers on September 11, 2001 has been avaialbe for a long time. I learned about it in early 2021. There were bombs placed in the tower to bring them down. Larry Silverstein had purchased the World Trade Center. It may have been a planned false flag operation.
Following that we ended up with the Patriot Act which allowed more surveillance of the general public (us). Bill Binney quit his job with the National Security Agency when he observed what was happening. The programs he and his team had developed were never meant to be use in the way they had been.
Building 7 also went down on September 11, 2001. I still remember my cousin calling and telling me a relative was okay. He worked at the Pentagon (military). When she told me a plane hit the building I started asking questions (how are the people on the plane and about restricted air space). She yelled at me and told me to turn on the tv that the U.S. was being attacked. That never made any sense to me. An airplane is not capable of making a gapping hole in a brick or stone building and can not cut through rebar. The planes would crumple upon impact.
I have just recently learned a bit more. Are you willing to read through legislation, laws and watch a podcast? In 1992 the U.S. congress passed the John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act of 1992 (Senate Bill 3006).
This is known as public law 102-526. The records were to be released in 2017. CIA director Mike Pompeo stopped the release of those records. I just learned this while listening to this podcast. https://youtu.be/t81CeoEcCik?si=JScS9jMFRbQ8SEY6 It is stated by Erik Prince around 18 minutes.
Aren’t The Creator’s miracles always “against all odds”⁉️. Isn’t the Exodus from Mitsrayim and the parting of the Red Sea also extremely unlikely in the natural? Aren’t all miracles also against all the nature of the natural laws? Would they be miracles if the natural probabilities allowed finite possibilities within nature?😳🤔
Ask Israel if their victories against the combined Arab countries attacks in 1967, where a ragtag Israeli defense defeated a professional well equipped and trained combined armed forces of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria?!?
In Search of a Miracle documented many “miracles” in that conflict that couldn’t be otherwise explained!😳🙏🏼💕🙏🏼
I still question how much was pre-taped and edited. Also with multi shooting sounds have to wonder if any could be sound FX edited in. “Movie magic” is more real than most know. Djt is very familiar with the film industry and how is can be great trickery. Have to say two times on set I was caught in is this real or not. First time I knew not real as the FX guy showed me how what a real life looking baby was merely a robot operated off camera. So creepy as that “baby” looked so real especially when controlled to move. That was in late 1990s. Several yrs later in a morgue scene on Six Feet Under a “fake” cadaver looked so real it was hard to tell standing over it’s face. The outcome of final cuts depends on several things, camera angles, lighting and editing. Editing in many ways is the biggest part and now digital there is no more actual film splicing.
Most sounds are not added until editing. All quiet on set for clear actor dialog.
Let me give you a final response and some parting advice, "Tworsh."
For the last time, I see the evidence. I speak frequently with a good friend and an agile thinker who firmly asserts that he does not believe the Butler shooting to be real. He makes that case much better than do you. I understand, and understood from the very beginning, the hypothetical scenarios regarding this point and other aspects of this ongoing event. I formulated these hypotheses on my own, and I see them laid out before me like blackjack cards on a table. I understand the semantics and theatrical appearances, as well. I am an extremely careful thinker and I make distinctions between circumstantial (which is important for both leads and for eventually establishing motive) and dispositive evidence. I also know how to collect evidence.
You are playing like an amateur. You insult and you impute to me ignorance or, worse, both stupidity and ignorance. This ends our discussion, not because of differences in how we handle the known details of this case. It is your propensity to belittle as soon as you cannot achieve your goal. It is as if you think you are on one of those rude, backalley chat channels where guys grunt at each other or the gals immediately demand that someone block the ones--especially the rational ones--with whom they disagree, or whom they simply dislike because of identity.
As a parting suggestion, eventually try using your real name. Just watch how that improves your rigor and your manners---and your efficacy.
Goodbye. I wish you the best.
(For young men and women online, I recommend that they use pseudonyms starting out in life: they have too much to protect and they are too many sick or evil actors out there who practice cancellation and character assassination.)
I'd say the chances the Trump ear shooting happened are effectively zero.
Precisely.
Great information. I still have questions about whether Trump was involved in the staging of all this. The simple fact that his hand had no blood on it after the supposed shot seems so unrealistic. And he specifically said in his RNC speech and FOX interview that he had blood all over his hand. That does not seem to be true. The video shows him with his fist and open hand with no blood on hand. Any thoughts on this?
Hi Marae,
I think Trump was in on this staged “ear hit,” but he was not in charge of it. Rather, it was likely [redacted] military intelligence, just as for 9/11, which planned and executed the operation.
I discuss his lack of bleeding here: https://hillmd.substack.com/i/146611400/trumps-ear-did-not-bleed-enough-for-a-gunshot-wound
And here: https://hillmd.substack.com/i/147013417/trump-contradicts-evidence-wont-talk-about-it-anymore
Thanks so much for clarifying this. Really appreciate your ability to calmly and honestly look into all of this.
Thank you for being here, Marae.
I couldn't explain the lack of blood on his hand, but all other signs point to Trump being shot.
I would think that it could have happened like this: Trump turns his head and the bullet just grazed his ear only minimal. He reflexively reached there before the blood came out. At that moment he realized that a shot had been fired and let himself fall. Both hands were pointing to the ground to catch himself. The blood shot out of his ear and ran down his cheek. In the shock he would not even know where he was injured. Then he left the stage with the security guards. The blood therefore does not necessarily have to be on his hand.
Hi Carsten,
Also consider:
No blood on his shirt either.
No visible sign of an ear wound.
Now totally “healed.”
Very little bleeding evident.
Are folks still assuming there was only one shooter? What if the security lapse was due to buget cuts, lowering of standards of personnel fitness (mental and physical)? What if one in the crowd was a media person with credentials? Why did CNN live stream this rally and not others? Are folks seeking video and first hand accounts from eye witnessess? We have a duty to continue to ask questions and seek information.
I am still learning more. I think it is dangerous to assume this was some type of ritual or annoiting. That is a bit to base for me.
I watched this today. https://youtu.be/tVn_56UcCIc?si=YznGmQVB0XxmtfUI
I do not believe thiis is a war between Gog and Magog, This is a war for humanity. We will be taken down to our lowest to learn a lesson that only God can deliver to us.
"God will take us to the point of destruction because then and only then God will teach us the great lesson. That’s the way he does it."
No one race, religion or ethinicity is above another. It is dangerous to elevate a man to a positon only God is priviliged to hold.
"No one race, religion or ethinicity is above another. It is dangerous to elevate a man to a positon only God is priviliged to hold."
Stripper Politicians
https://pasteboard.co/mogVMesFXXZg.jpg
1 Samuel 8
"...So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use.
17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord.
22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
Re: FAKED EAR WOUND ON DJT: likely QQ and AA:
(a) where there people actually shot? YES, very likely
(b) were there shots fired in Trump's direction? YES, very likely
(c) could not aiming at Trump's head conceivably result in an ear wound? YES, with likelihood reflected as a spatial probability distribution centered on DJT's head
(d) would pulling off a theatrical wounding not introduce risks of exposure? YES
CONCLUSION: By strong inference, the faking of the would would be--without further evidence--appear implausible.
NOTE: Contrary to the disparaging and condescending tone of some remarks on the internet by those convinced that this was enirely (or partially) theatrical, I am not a "true believer." I am open to the possibility of a complete theatrical job if you provide even some physical evidence.
We don’t see sufficient or coherent evidence of an ear wound, just a lot of people saying it.
The burden of persuasion and evidence production lies with the party making the assertion of an ear injury.
Dr. Hill, I do not see this in terms of "burden of evidence." That is a legal term. Scientific investigations do not flow from juridical standards of evidence---for good reason. And further, let me take your own reply and turn it around: "We don’t see sufficient or coherent evidence of the absence of an ear wound, just a lot of people saying it." See, there is nothing in the rules of logic that give this statement preeminence over its converse.
Perhaps advancing our common pursuit of what really went on, I would ask you to address the few items (a through d) that I enumerated above. When I taught a logic & critical thinking course, I would ask the students to take an issue of their choosing and develop one (or more) counterarguments. Good philosophy classes and law school professors do this. So do scientists in developing, maintaining and ruling out when possible, multiple working hypotheses.
I can, in fact, imagine that view we saw of Trump's alleged wound if there was concommitant tissue maceration and, thus, rapid clotting. The maceration would make more likely accelerated induction of the clotting cascade---unlike a clean kitchen or shaving wound. Regardless, I think that you and I are agreed that where this is a real wound, or a simiulated wound, we are considering what is (or is made to appear to be) a very slight wound.
It is okay to approach a problem with a pre-filter (sample-selecting bias) as long as one goes back and accounts for counter interpretations.
Good points, David.
While legal and scientific evidential burdens aren’t identical (e.g., there is no “burden shifting” in science as in a court case), they are similar in terms of the assertion-presenting person’s needing to demonstrate sufficiency of evidence (burden of persuasion).
As you’re aware, a scientific assertion that “drug A effectively treats disease B” — negating the null hypothesis — has a different character for regulators and journal editors than “there’s no evidence drug A does not effectively treat disease B,” which might invite a conclusion that the null hypothesis is false without demonstrating so.
Dr. Hill,
Yes, Sir. there are Type I and Type II errors. And in pharmacology, it can get very difficult. All drugs, probably have potential (to varying degree) to both help and to harm depending on a myriad of factors. In a sense, the nature of a new drug--its good and its bad--does not exist until it has been applied to many subjects---ultimately the target human population, though much can be learned from other animals. Monitoring that statistically as data emerges coming from doctors, patients and actuarial analysts, is no small feat.
The establishing of the more-or-less concrete events of historical or physical haqppenings is much more tractable to signal transduction and simpler testing of hypotheses (t-tests, Chi-squared, and non-parametric tests also.)
For instance, I am confident that there is a way to test what we need to know, even now.
And if you would, again, please address the four points--a, b, c, and d--that I made in a post earlier.
Hi David,
In response to your points:
(a) “were there people actually shot? YES, very likely”
Agreed.
(b) “were there shots fired in Trump's direction? YES, very likely”
In his general direction, yes. Directly at him, no, not in this staged scenario.
(c) “could not aiming at Trump's head conceivably result in an ear wound? YES, with likelihood reflected as a spatial probability distribution centered on DJT's head”
I haven’t seen evidence anyone fired directly at Trump. This appears a staged operation to trick people by making it look like Trump’s right ear was “pierced,” thereby fulfilling “prophecy.”
(d) “would pulling off a theatrical wounding not introduce risks of exposure? YES”
Agreed, and I’d submit this sham “ear shooting” has been exposed for at least the reasons described here: https://hillmd.substack.com/p/seven-signs-trumps-assassination
Thank you, Dr. Hill. The items you listed as seven (and then nine) signs that Trump's assassination was faked. Every one of those things does raise suspicions---but they do so in the category of motivation and opportunity. What those seven or nine items possess--then--are various degrees of circumstantial suspicion, if not evidence. But what these circumstantial factors of lack at this stage, however, is probative quality. These cited items--do raise an eyebrow (and curiosity), nonetheless. This is why I say that I was--and still am--open to real evidence that demonstrates the act of fakery involving the ear wound. I am very curious about images that we will see of the right ear of Mr. Trump as we approach a month or more.
no one was shot, they can fake deaths too.
Of course deaths can be faked. Many deaths throughout history have been faked and faked for all sorts of reasons. The question is, "Were deaths faked in the case of the July 13, 2024-Trump Rally in Butler, Pennsylvania?" If one insists that the answer is "yes," then positive evidence must be offered in sufficient detail that deaths were faked. This cannot just be the kind of argument that since something is possible, or imaginable, therefore it is the case.
"This cannot just be the kind of argument that since something is possible, or imaginable, therefore it is the case." you're actually doing the same thing, only in your case, you're unwarily reversing it giving the benefit of doubt to the media who are the ones dictating that ex-fireman died. you're saying, "because it's possible he died, let's give that information the benefit." ...um, anything is possible, buddy, you need use occam's razor in these situations, but that requires common sense...
your logic is utter trash. if it "can" be faked, and slowpokes like yourself believe it's real, then guess what the deep state does? you're incredibly naive, but here you go, exhaustive detail you would never be able to write yourself... hopefully it's not too much of a read for you: https://mileswmathis.com/crooks.pdf
Oh, I just discovered this very nasty, arrogant comment by you. Not a good look for you.
nasty, arrogant, yet... true. and i'm guessing you didn't read the pdf i kindly linked you to, which speaks volumes.
Again, arrogantly, you make assumptions. I read the document last night. I was not impressed. It was rambling and poorly written.
Thank you Dr.Hill.God Bless*. Americans need to raise the standard of pure objectification..disallow trolls..reject all sclerotic..disruptive..free floating flame throwing digital soldier lunacy..as we all used to know..all who believe lies will eventually ..irrevocably..inexorably.....go..insane**
I’d guess the chance of that bullet doing that special kind of fancy dancing is about the same as Trump having no clue Operation Warp Speed was deadly.
Wake up and smell the reality.
Yes. Trump has turned out to be quite the actor in these matters.
This is a very intriguing discussion. Some have compared the DJT event in question with Revelation 13:3. Any comparisons between the alleged wounding of DJT and Revelation (Apocalypse) 13:3 in which the first beast rising out of the sea (traditionally identified as the antichrist) is seemingly fatally wounded and then unexpectedly healed, is untenable. That is the case irrespective of which translation/version of the Bible one considers, e.g.:
"And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.", (Rev. 13:3, King James Version [KJV]).
"One of the beast’s heads looked like it had sustained a mortal wound, but its fatal wound was healed. Rapt with amazement, the whole world followed the beast.", (Rev. 13:3, International Standard Version [ISV]).
"One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.", (New International Version [NIV]).
"One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its (the beast) mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth followed the beast with wonder,", (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition [RSVCE]).
In Revelation 13:3 the wound only appeared to be fatal but was not, meaning, it was part of a deception, a trick to make it appear to be fatal when it wasn't. The context makes it clear some kind of wound actually occurred. The reader is to understand that whatever happened was clouded in deceit.
The question with respect to DJT is whether anything physical at all happened to his ear (if a gunshot induced physical wound occurred that day, forensic proof of it could easily be produced that would satisfy any properly constituted legal tribunal). No one alleges that it appeared to be fatal. The comparison between the DJT event in question and Revelation 13:3 is therefore inappropriate. Bear in mind, if such a comparison is thought to be valid, then DJT is being identified with or at least compared to the AC (irrespective of whether any other evidence exists in support of that contention or not). Only those who think or want DJT to be the AC would find such a comparison appealing.
There are really only three possibilities, 1) an actual assassination attempt was made and those responsible for preventing it and securing DJT were hopelessly incompetent. 2) an actual assassination attempt was made and those responsible for preventing it were complicit in it. 3) No actual assassination attempt was made. Instead, the event was staged in order to make people think an actual assassination attempt had occurred. All relevant evidence should be collected and analyzed in light of these three hypothetical scenarios/possibilities to ascertain closeness of fit by an independent investigation where none of the participants have any actual or potential conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the probability of that happening is estimated to be zero.
Good analysis. Thank you, aka J Shannon.
It’s looking like option 3 is most likely: https://hillmd.substack.com/p/seven-signs-trumps-assassination
Lmao. A+ video clip
Cmon man the orange chosen one took a bullet for us.. fight fight
Trump's first job was an assistant to a carpenter (lolz):
https://www.biblaridion.info/blog/black-magic-3/
"So you are telling me there is a chance. YEA!!!"
Hope springs eternal. Insert smiley face here.
This is absurd because you are letting a LLM which is a fool's simulacrum of intelligence, multiply probabilities containing invalid and even contradictory assumptions.
1) "Allowing president to stand": we have multiple documented instances of malfeasance on the part of SS which make this additional violation of protocol unsurprising.
2) the shooter was not unidentified but by multiple reports identified minutes before shots taken. Where is the assumption baked-into the estimate supported?
3) the estimate of hitting the ear is based on the assumption that hitting the ear and not the head was intentional. Is this the case you want to present here and if so why don't you mention it?
Even legitimate attempts at analysis of the event are confounded by the fact that any deep state coordination of such can be expected to include planted misinformation. Do we know that the eyewitness reports put to video minutes after the event are real? Which ones? Is the audio of shots fired presented to us true?
I've deleted the rest of my comments out of respect for your past work.
Hi Perry,
Thank you for your comment and for being a reader.
I’m not relying on the above LLM (ChatGPT-4) analysis, done by someone else. But it underscores the need to multiply separate probabilities of independent events resulting in what we observed.
1) "Allowing president to stand: We have multiple documented instances of malfeasance on the part of SS which make this additional violation of protocol unsurprising.”
This is true, but any such original malfeasance is expected to have a low probability.
Secret Service protocol breaks are ordinarily improbable and associated with corruption and assassination.
Example: An agent was evidently ordered to stand down from JFK’s motorcade right before assassination: https://youtu.be/yS7XIWnsZTI
Such protocol violations could occur with real assassinations or staged attempts in which some Secret Service leaders or agents participate.
2) “The shooter was not unidentified but by multiple reports identified minutes before shots taken. Where is the assumption baked-into the estimate supported?”
It appears the LLM query was based on Secret Service Director Cheatle saying they did not identify the shooter as a “threat” until he was already on the roof with a rifle and, according to FBI Director Wray’s testimony this week, did not shoot him until after he fired at least eight shots.
This would be expected to be improbable under ordinary circumstances of Secret Service protection.
3) “The estimate of hitting the ear is based on the assumption that hitting the ear and not the head was intentional. Is this the case you want to present here and if so why don't you mention it?”
The LLM query is not mine, and I think, based on evidence presented, the odds of Trump’s ear being hit, barely bleeding, and not his head, are lower than the 1 in 1 trillion estimated by ChatGPT.
My contention is Trump’s ear was not hit and that he was never intentionally shot at. Rather, shots were fired into the crowd, killing and injuring bystanders, as part of a staged event made to look like an assassination attempt.
“Do we know that the eyewitness reports put to video minutes after the event are real? Which ones? Is the audio of shots fired presented to us true?”
Good points. It’s hard to know what’s true. But the burden of persuasion and evidence production demonstrating an ear “hit” lies with those presenting that case. Thus far, they’ve failed.
Who are the players; the deep state vs the white hats or Trump's people?
It does seem the ds don't want Trump to win, so why would they stage something that's helped him?
If Trump had been hit, the ds would achieve two objectives; Trump out whilst sowing chaos, confusion and division (or more of the same) across the US.
It is likely [redacted] military intelligence, who appear to want Trump back in office.
From what I have read, it is regular folks who want DJT back in office. It certainly is not the ones who commit horrid crimes against innocent children and use us for their experiments.
Why do you think Trump promised before his first term to declassify the JFK and 9/11 files and never did?
He’s covering for that group, which also controls nearly all of Congress.
I don't think he is covering for anyone. I think folks are not ready for the truth. Especially about the assassination of JFK. There was some information released. I think The Black Vault website has it. https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-0415670303993289:5905961212&ie=UTF-8&q=kennedy+assassination&sa=Search&ref=#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=kennedy%20assassination&gsc.page=1
What happened with the towers on September 11, 2001 has been avaialbe for a long time. I learned about it in early 2021. There were bombs placed in the tower to bring them down. Larry Silverstein had purchased the World Trade Center. It may have been a planned false flag operation.
Following that we ended up with the Patriot Act which allowed more surveillance of the general public (us). Bill Binney quit his job with the National Security Agency when he observed what was happening. The programs he and his team had developed were never meant to be use in the way they had been.
Building 7 also went down on September 11, 2001. I still remember my cousin calling and telling me a relative was okay. He worked at the Pentagon (military). When she told me a plane hit the building I started asking questions (how are the people on the plane and about restricted air space). She yelled at me and told me to turn on the tv that the U.S. was being attacked. That never made any sense to me. An airplane is not capable of making a gapping hole in a brick or stone building and can not cut through rebar. The planes would crumple upon impact.
http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/
https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
https://archive.ph/34C9V
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/04/28/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf
Pentagon footage. https://youtu.be/zze32ZEjt30?si=bIMLyLGN4fnPOrcM
https://corbettreport.com/qfc-ffbooks/
This documentary contains actual footage that many are unaware of.
https://youtu.be/u53w7H3fuEY?si=j256p0Yp_JUazN1A
There were things going on prior to September 11, 2001 that was not being spoken of by our media (controlled by intelligence community).
https://youtu.be/_J3qyDQU7ic?si=wtNTL18LwXZRViHf
It really helps to point folks in a direction where they might learn information. I hope this helps.
I have just recently learned a bit more. Are you willing to read through legislation, laws and watch a podcast? In 1992 the U.S. congress passed the John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act of 1992 (Senate Bill 3006).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/3006/text President George H.W. Bush signed this bill into law on October 26, 1992.
This is known as public law 102-526. The records were to be released in 2017. CIA director Mike Pompeo stopped the release of those records. I just learned this while listening to this podcast. https://youtu.be/t81CeoEcCik?si=JScS9jMFRbQ8SEY6 It is stated by Erik Prince around 18 minutes.
Who were the members of the Warren Commission? Why was a former director of the CIA (Allen Dulles) on this commission? https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2017/fall/jfk-records
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2023/eirv50n01-20230106/eirv50n01-20230106_005-a_dialogue_the_non_release_of_th.pdf
Aren’t The Creator’s miracles always “against all odds”⁉️. Isn’t the Exodus from Mitsrayim and the parting of the Red Sea also extremely unlikely in the natural? Aren’t all miracles also against all the nature of the natural laws? Would they be miracles if the natural probabilities allowed finite possibilities within nature?😳🤔
Ask Israel if their victories against the combined Arab countries attacks in 1967, where a ragtag Israeli defense defeated a professional well equipped and trained combined armed forces of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria?!?
In Search of a Miracle documented many “miracles” in that conflict that couldn’t be otherwise explained!😳🙏🏼💕🙏🏼
You are deceived, or are the deceiver.
Better question yet, James:
What were the odds that Trump staged this,
while:
1. Nuland declared that Trump will not be President again because he will have an "unhappy surprise"
2. 12 Meg shares in Trump's company got shorted before that weekend by an investment company connected to the Bush family?
Trump did not stage this, Hubris, any more than Larry Silverstein staged 9/11.
The stock shorts could have been hedged with long positions so there would be no loss.
What if djt did not stage, but just participated?
I still question how much was pre-taped and edited. Also with multi shooting sounds have to wonder if any could be sound FX edited in. “Movie magic” is more real than most know. Djt is very familiar with the film industry and how is can be great trickery. Have to say two times on set I was caught in is this real or not. First time I knew not real as the FX guy showed me how what a real life looking baby was merely a robot operated off camera. So creepy as that “baby” looked so real especially when controlled to move. That was in late 1990s. Several yrs later in a morgue scene on Six Feet Under a “fake” cadaver looked so real it was hard to tell standing over it’s face. The outcome of final cuts depends on several things, camera angles, lighting and editing. Editing in many ways is the biggest part and now digital there is no more actual film splicing.
Most sounds are not added until editing. All quiet on set for clear actor dialog.
So much trickery and deception.
Agree DJT participated.
I see a whore cojoined with the beast.
Let me give you a final response and some parting advice, "Tworsh."
For the last time, I see the evidence. I speak frequently with a good friend and an agile thinker who firmly asserts that he does not believe the Butler shooting to be real. He makes that case much better than do you. I understand, and understood from the very beginning, the hypothetical scenarios regarding this point and other aspects of this ongoing event. I formulated these hypotheses on my own, and I see them laid out before me like blackjack cards on a table. I understand the semantics and theatrical appearances, as well. I am an extremely careful thinker and I make distinctions between circumstantial (which is important for both leads and for eventually establishing motive) and dispositive evidence. I also know how to collect evidence.
You are playing like an amateur. You insult and you impute to me ignorance or, worse, both stupidity and ignorance. This ends our discussion, not because of differences in how we handle the known details of this case. It is your propensity to belittle as soon as you cannot achieve your goal. It is as if you think you are on one of those rude, backalley chat channels where guys grunt at each other or the gals immediately demand that someone block the ones--especially the rational ones--with whom they disagree, or whom they simply dislike because of identity.
As a parting suggestion, eventually try using your real name. Just watch how that improves your rigor and your manners---and your efficacy.
Goodbye. I wish you the best.
(For young men and women online, I recommend that they use pseudonyms starting out in life: they have too much to protect and they are too many sick or evil actors out there who practice cancellation and character assassination.)