Must be my eyes because the damage profiles seem different to me.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Must be my eyes because the damage profiles seem different to me.

The stock is collapsed in the second photo.

Yes I know but I’m looking at the edges the first seems pretty ragged, second and third seem smoother.

Only questioning it because it’s an FBI photo

The damage profiles are the same. In the first pic, the front edge damage looks ragged because of two things. The pic is much better defined, and with the stock extended, the damage part is on a white background, so easier to see. The second pic, although a little larger, is a little not in focus, plus it's with the stock collapsed, so it's the same color as the buffer tube next to it. Same thing with the 3rd pic, stock collapsed. Even worse that it's smaller.

Oh for fucks sake. There's no conspiracy on the photos being edited or it's a different gun.

The picture that now shows the rifle with the stock extended answers how the stock was extensively damaged with no damage to the receiver extension (buffer tube). (I should have focused on the fact that the other photos show the stock collapsed, and it would have been more likely to have been extended when being fired.)

I believe the picture of the stock extended supports the original claim that the stock was damaged by the shot from the SWAT member rather than the Secret Service sniper’s shot. Had it been the latter, where is the blood that would have been splattered all over as the bullet exited the killer’s neck and took off the top of the stock? Would the FBI have meticulously cleaned the gun before releasing photos? Possible, I suppose, but I also believe very unlikely.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Looks like some kind of RDS. What kind of an assassin uses a RDS trying to take out your target at long distance? Guess he couldn't afford a real scope.

The kind that uses his Dad's rifle who's also lacking in skill and knowledge in how to use it.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Must be my eyes because the damage profiles seem different to me.

JPEG images which are highly compressed lose fine detail. I've no doubt that the original versions of these FBI images are high-resolution and not compressed to any appreciable degree, but the versions released to the public are simply for viewing on the internet.

A 70 or 100 MB image is not going to show up on FoxNews or Twitter, and therefore, the fine detail is absent. The JPEG compression algorithm can introduce misleading artifacts into highly compressed images.

That second image- the one of the rifle separated into upper and lower- I created that image by taking the third image- which shows the rifle and backpack, rotating the image 90 degrees, cropping it, enlarging it and tweaking it. Hence, the funky appearance, because it's been compressed twice.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
It’s my understanding that this new indictment from Jack Smith is basically a repackaged, slimmed-down version of what he was pushing before and got smacked down on. Stinks of desperation to me.

WTF is Smith still on the gov't. payroll? His position was never authorized by Congress. He should be unemployed like months ago, and Merrick Garland should be repaying his entire investigation expenses out of his salary, pension and personal assets.

I am sure that Smith will resign immediately up receipt of the sternly worded letter that he is about to receive from the useless and pathetic Republicans.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
The kind that uses his Dad's rifle who's also lacking in skill and knowledge in how to use it.

Exactly. The timeline of the shots that were recorded on audio show that he fired three shots and then after a short break, fired five more. The were very rapid, more along the line of “spray and pray” than any sort of aimed fire. That’s the obvious reason why the shots were widely scattered and the three spectators who were injured (one killed) were at nearly opposite ends of the bleachers where they were sitting. Considering how tightly packed the crowd around President Trump was and no one else was hit, I can only wonder where the other four shots went. I’m reminded of another presidential assassin who managed to miss an entire car from less than 100 yards.

A red dot sight on a rifle like that at the ~150 yard distance to his intended target could have been totally effective in the hands of an even semicompetent shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
<<snip>>
A red dot sight on a rifle like that at the ~150 yard distance to his intended target could have been totally effective in the hands of an even semicompetent shooter.

At my local outdoor range, the longest section is 100 yards. I will put a line of target clays on the back berm and reliably shatter them all with my Ruger AR556 with a 3 MOA red dot reflex sight, then go back and shatter any remaining pieces with near 100% reliability.

I'm not the greatest shot around, and the rifle is factory stock regarding anything that would improve accuracy, and yet consistent hits at the 100 yard range is quite easy. I have no doubt that a target the size of a man's head would still be quite easy at 150 yards!

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
There are a number of video clips on YT from the Republican Forum on the Assassination Attempt on President Trump. Here’s just one.
...

It difficult not to sense government involvement in the assassination attempt.

They raise good questions... and yes, as Dan Bongino says, given the gravity of the threat, "it's odd" but other than raise some good questions, nothing is done by Congress.

And so it remains to be determined whether the cover-up is covering up government involvement or government incompetence.

But either way, as Eric Prince says, they should be more forthcoming.

I wish I knew what it was like to use a red dot with 20yo eyes. I remember what it was like with 35yo eyes out to 200 yards on 9" paper plates.

I do think the RDS is yet another strike against the conspiracy theories though. If he had Schmidt and Bender 1-8x24 or a Trijicon ACOG 4x32, then I might entertain a theory or two.

The SWAT guy got close. I don’t know how he hit the stock where most people would have a cheek weld without hitting the shooter even thinking about if the shooter was left or right handed and what side of the shooter was the SWAT guy on.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

They raise good questions... and yes, as Dan Bongino says, given the gravity of the threat, "it's odd" but other than raise some good questions, nothing is done by Congress.

And so it remains to be determined whether the cover-up is covering up government involvement or government incompetence.

But either way, as Eric Prince says, they should be more forthcoming.

Our opponents are masters of understanding evidence vs. proof.

Good news, Pennsylvania!

Underreported Polling Suggests Trump Is Poised to Win PA
By Athan Koutsiouroumbas

If past is prologue, Donald Trump will win Pennsylvania.

Eight years ago this week, Hillary Clinton led in Pennsylvania by more than nine points; four years ago, Joe Biden led by nearly six points. Clinton lost Pennsylvania by less than a point, while Biden won it by more than a point.

Heading into the Democratic National Convention, the Emerson/RealClearPennsylvania poll showed Trump leading Vice President Kamala Harris by a point.

Averaging together the Pennsylvania polling taken since Harris became the Democratic Party’s nominee, the state’s presidential race is a dead heat.

Of the fifty-nine public polls released in 2016 tracking the Pennsylvania presidential race, Trump led in only two. In 2020, Trump led in only five of the eighty-four Pennsylvania polls released.

This cycle, Trump has led in thirteen of the seventeen Pennsylvania polls released. In fact, Trump is leading more polls than the previous two election cycles combined, and we have yet to reach Labor Day, when polling frequency intensifies.

Considering the previous Pennsylvania election results, today’s polling suggests that Trump is poised to seize the largest margin of victory for a presidential candidate in Pennsylvania since Barack Obama’s eight-point win in 2008.

It’s unlikely that Trump can duplicate Obama’s margin. Pennsylvania voters are supremely polarized, just like elsewhere in the country. The partisan mobilization of the left and right guarantees a close race. Harris’s candidacy has ignited a previously dormant liberal base, while legal persecution and an assassination attempt on Trump crystallized voting as a cultural imperative on the right.

Nonetheless, the dramatic polling shift compared with previous presidential election cycles is confounding, as no pivotal factor explains Trump’s persistent overperformance. Rather, it appears to be caused by an accrual of factors.

One factor may be the reputed “shy Trump voters” who are no longer inhibited from voicing their support. These voters shocked the world in 2016 and defied 2020 polling. They are now out of the Trump closet, loud and proud.

Another factor may be the strength of regional biases. In northeastern Pennsylvania, Biden wore his “Scranton Joe” moniker proudly, emphasizing his birthplace and hardscrabble roots in the Commonwealth. It helped Biden tap into the region’s swing voters in a way that Clinton could not. Now these voters are trending Republican, and Biden’s absence from the ticket gives license for them to go with the GOP.

It’s a similar dynamic in northwestern Pennsylvania. Erie County’s working-class voters, who put both Obama and Trump in office, are unlikely to lean toward Harris, who calls San Francisco home. In Butler County, where Trump was shot and a beloved firefighter was murdered in the crossfire, voters will surge for Trump to a historic level.

In the Philadelphia media market, which includes Delaware, daily political coverage included Biden’s senatorial career for over forty years. Philadelphia and suburban residents learned about Biden’s doings no differently than from their own senators. Biden improved on Clinton’s historic suburban margins; Harris cannot recreate this affinity.

An African-American turnout surge in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, akin to that which propelled Obama into office, is highly likely. However, the anecdotes of Trump getting a closer look from black males are real. He earned 12% of the black vote in 2020, and it is not unreasonable to expect that he could maintain or improve on that performance, which may negate a Harris-driven turnout surge.

Driving the wedge with African American males, and with most Pennsylvanians, is the economy. Over 50% of Pennsylvanians rank the economy as the top issue, with Trump carrying a commanding lead over Harris in this regard. Meanwhile, less than 5% of voters rate abortion access as the election’s top issue. Most Pennsylvania political analysts cannot recall a time this century when a single issue so dominated voters’ priorities.

The unprecedented shift in Pennsylvania’s voter registration is yet another factor. Since 2008, the 1.1 million-voter Democratic registration advantage has whittled down to about 350,000. Prior to the 2024 Pennsylvania primary, all 67 of Pennsylvania’s counties saw net gains of Republican voters. Should the trend continue, Pennsylvania will be majority Republican by 2028.

Mail-in balloting is relatively new to Pennsylvania. Starting during the 2020 Covid lockdowns, Democratic applicants hold a nearly 3:1 advantage over Republicans. While the margin is daunting, the lack of enthusiasm for Biden’s candidacy may hold relief for Republicans.

In the 2020 presidential election, nearly 1.7 million Democrats applied for a mail-in ballot; more than half of applicants applied after the third week of August. In the 2022 midterm, more than 900,000 Democrats applied for a mail-in ballot; about one-third applied after the same week in August. This year, about 650,000 Democrats have applied as of last week. To meet 2020’s tally, the Democrats have a lot of work to do. Yet all these factors pale beside the stunning polling trend that Trump is experiencing in the Keystone State. The former president’s Pennsylvania polling strength and consistency may be the most underreported trend of the 2024 election cycle.

https://realclearwire.com/arti..._win_pa_1054195.html

I was properly chastened by Para when I posted earlier another article about how the polls are wrong because of oversampling Dems or whatever.
This is yet another breathless "underreported trend".
It helps me psychologically because I can't believe how utterly stupid half the voters in the country are, but "meh".

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I was properly chastened by Para when I posted earlier another article about how the polls are wrong because of oversampling Dems or whatever.
This is yet another breathless "underreported trend".
It helps me psychologically because I can't believe how utterly stupid half the voters in the country are, but "meh".

Yes there are emotional voters and low information voters in great numbers but the number of utterly stupid voters (however there is little difference) is over blown in my opinion. That's how voting scams and cheating gain traction. We are to quick to just say how can all these people be so stupid to vote for X over Y when perhaps that hasn't been the case. Cheating never really came to the forefront until 2020 when we all know it's been going on much longer than that. We have just always been underestimating the level of it. Makes it easy for those in power who are pulling the levers when the general populace quickly blames each other.

Outside of reliably-solid-blue-Democrat and utter lost cause Philadelphia (and most likely Pittsburgh but I don't live near there) there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm that I can see for Harris-Walz here in SE Pennsylvania but I keep seeing more and more Trump signs (and not just little lawn signs) everywhere. Like sheets of plywood size signs proudly in people's front yards.

Have yet to see even a Harris-Walz yard sign anywhere.

Even John Fetterman has admitted that PA may likely be won by Trump this time around.

I have never seen a Harris-Walz yard sign anywhere. And I have never seen a Build Back Better hat anywhere. I have seen Biden-Harris bumper stickers before, but they're pretty rare.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I was properly chastened by Para when I posted earlier another article about how the polls are wrong because of oversampling Dems or whatever.

I don't recall this. Would you point it out to me, please?