Show Me

Earn a finder’s fee of $200 -- This is Call #3

Find a good scientific article that helps me understand how proteins arose and evolved. It shouldn’t be difficult to earn this fee.

I have a goal to be more educated on protein evolution. Specifically I desire to find the six most convincing scientific articles that communicate why it is reasonable to think all proteins on earth have come about by materialistic processes. Alas, ChatGPT has let me down. I have confidence that real people can do much better (that isn't sarcasm, I really do believe that, and I understand that my own knowledge is largely layman level, so there is plenty of room for me to learn).

See below for details and payment conditions…

Evolutionists make two very bold claims

Theory 1 - Arrival of the first protein

Evolutionists claim that the first functional protein to ever appear in the universe did so through purely materialistic processes. Keep in mind that there is no evolution (by definition) until you have something that is functional. It has been estimated that the likelihood of happening upon an amino acid sequence that produces a functional protein using chance alone would be 1 chance in 10⁷⁷ . This is of course a debatable estimate. It has been estimated that you should consider any event impossible if its chances are worse than 1 in 10⁴⁵ . As I say, given current estimates I am aware of, this first claim seems quite bold. If an evolutionist believes this, evidence needs to be put forth that supports this belief (do not expect multiverse theories to convince me - or others - though you are welcome to try). What scientific paper explains why the estimated probability of 1 in 1077 is substantially incorrect? Show me.

Theory 2 - New proteins evolve fairly easily from existing proteins

Evolutionists also claim that any existing protein could have evolved from a previously existing protein (or else you must double down on Theory 1 that multiple proteins popped into existence through blind chance alone). The claim seems to be that proteins are similar to one another in their "blueprint" (the amino acid sequence that defines their construction). Thus, once you have existing proteins, a little (or a lot of) evolutionary time will lead to new proteins. New proteins are needed for all the new features organisms require for general evolution. Quantitatively, however, what evidence supports this? How similar are all the amino acid sequences in functional proteins? And how many amino acid changes (mutations) would cause any given functional protein to become non-functional? Once a protein is non-functional, it cannot evolve further (as I understand the theory; and you must then resort to Theory 1 again). The only  detailed study I have seen of this suggests that many proteins can continue to function well with a single amino acid change. Many will function okay with two changes, but after 3 or 4 changes, function is degraded (usually severely), and after about 5 or more, there is typically zero functionality (see figure below). The true scientist following the data needs studies to verify how many amino acid changes break functional proteins, and the truly curious scientist needs to know how far apart in sequence space functional proteins are from one another. How far do you have to go along the x-axis from one functional protein before you find another? Show me.

The Reality - I’m not on the defensive here (yet)

For years I lamented that I had trouble finding scientific studies that address these two questions adequately. I began to think these questions were not being researched adequately, perhaps because few wanted to find the answer. But you know, it really isn't my job to discover evidence for doubting these two theories. It is the evolutionist who has made the bold claims. It is really on the evolutionist (or the ones who take them at their word) to show WHY they believe these claims are reasonable. I am looking for solid scientific studies that explain this. Show me.

Note: I take submissions from anyone, whether an evolution believer, an evolution denier, or anywhere in between. Just because someone submits a study, or their name makes this list, I make no assumptions regarding their beliefs (nor should you - and that includes ChatGPT 😆). I'm happy for the fee to go to anyone (even if an AI finds it for you - but note that AI platforms like ChatGPT are notorious for giving non-existent papers as evidence for their answer).

The current top-six articles, three for each theory.

Theory 1: A functional protein could arise at random

1. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0708078105 (submitted by ChatGPT)
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283604007624
3. 5 non-existent articles (submitted by ChatGPT), so I'm looking for ANY article on this subject - an easy $200!

Theory 2: Functional proteins "easily" evolve to other functional proteins

1. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2509015122 H. Sahakyan, S. G. Babajanyan, Y. I. Wolf, E. V. Koonin, In silico evolution of globular protein folds from random sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 122 e2509015122 (2025). A critique of this paper can be found here: https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/false-science-a-claim-to-simulate-protein-evolution/
2. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2406807121 L. Di Bari, M. Bisardi, S. Cotogno, F. Zamponi, Emergent time scales of epistasis in protein evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121 (40) e2406807121 (2024).
3. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0509379103 Y. Zhang, I. Hubner, A. Arakaki, J. Skolnick, On the origin and highly likely completeness of single-domain protein structures. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103 (8) 2605-2610 (2006).

My use of the term "article" is synonymous with "scientific study". I am looking for studies, but I will also pay the finder's fee for a solid article that might fall short of a "study".

Payment conditions for your finder's fee:

1. You must submit exactly ONE article supporting theory 1 OR theory 2. If you send more than one, I will ONLY look at the first one you list. You can send the link via my Contact page (https://showme.bravesites.com/contact) or as a comment to the social media post that directed you here.

2. The submission must be a link through which the entire article is accessible, or have to find some way to provide me with the entire article by some practical (and legal) means within 5 days. Pointing me to a physical library in the North Alabama region would qualify.

3. You may only submit one article during each "call" for articles. You are welcome to re-submit an article on a future "call", but you may not re-submit an article someone else sent in.

4. The article has to be clearly better (more convincing to me) than one of the articles I currently have listed as top-three for each theory. I will be the final arbiter of "clearly better" (the stated goal is my own learning). If the article isn't a winner, I will reply attempting to give you my rationale, then I'll move on to the next one submitted.

5. I will only pay one finder's fee per "call" via Venmo, CashApp, Paypal, or a personal check by mail (you can contact / direct-message me payment info after I declare a "winner"). You can also let me know whether to put your name on the top-six list to credit you as the finder, or to be anonymous.

6. Each time a better article is found, I will update the top-six list and make another call for articles. If I am not finding better articles fast enough, I will likely increase the finder's fee. Between each new "call" phase, I reserve the right to change the finder's fee or discontinue my "learning". In the event I get a large number of submissions on social media, I reserve the right to post a "Pause submissions" comment and delete any incoming submissions after the pause.

Revision Log:

• Call #3: I found and added three PNAS papers (Sahakyan, DiBari, and Zhang); Removed https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/42/D1/D222/1062431 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283605801342 (this is only the abstract)
• Call #2: Increased finder's fee to $200

There have been many conspiracy theories floating around about Crooks not being the actual shooter, and there have been eyewitness accounts of other shooters. Some have involved the water tower, some have involved shooters from inside the buildings.

Some of the witnesses and analysis sounded FAR from credible, so I was skeptical. I decided to see if any of those theories merited further investigation, or whether they could possibly be eliminated.

The photo that inspired me to perform this analysis was this one by Doug Mills of the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html

My thought was that based on the angle of this bullet path, we should be able to trace its path backwards to see where it may have originated. This would not prove there were NOT multiple shooters, but it proves there was at least ONE shooter at the other end of this trajectory (assuming this photo is not fake, that it is relatively level to the horizon, and that the camera pointing direction is relatively close to perpendicular to the bullet trajectory both vertically and horizontally).

While this analysis is simple high-school level geometry and trigonometry, I will mention that my background includes being a software engineer, coder, and software project manager for a full rewrite of a series of photogrammetry/mensuration math models that became the core for tools used throughout the intelligence community. Note however, that the only tangible thing that experience lends to this analysis is a mindset accustomed to chaining angular calculations within a photo and across multiple photos, which comes from watching professional photogrammetrists perform tasks like these, and much more complex ones, on a daily basis.

Disclaimer 1: I expect the biggest unknown in my calculations is the accuracy of relative ground elevations provided by https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm
Disclaimer 2: This analysis is presented in an effort to determine if I made a mistake and to provoke further accurate thought and analysis. It is very possible that I used bad values, or that I made a simple sign error. I invite any and all peer review of this analysis.

So, here’s the math...

First, I computed the elevation angle of this bullet path using this photo.

I used MS Paint to draw a horizontal line and measure its length in pixels, then I drew another line along the path of the bullet. Over the length of these lines we get 16 pixels of elevation rise (moving back toward the rifle) and 814 pixels of run. So, using the TOA rule (tangent of the angle = opposite side / adjacent side), the elevation angle can be computed.

Bullet’s elevation angle is approximately 1.13 degrees.

Next, I wanted to find out the height of the apex of the roof where the shot allegedly took place. I wanted to know where it was SUPPOSED to be before I ran the calculations to see if it did indeed seem to come from there. To get this height, I used this photo, along with some elevation data.

This is the building Crooks was on top of (taken from Google Street View). I added red lines to identify the apex point, then drew blue lines to measure the height of the door (in pixels) and the height to the apex. This was 90 and 200 pixels respectively. Since doors are a pretty standard 80 inches, the roof apex height can be estimated. Also note that the windows in this building are quite low. If a second shooter were inside this building, it seems it couldn’t be any higher than the horizontal blue line. Also, I added a blue line at the steps to establish an upper maximum of the height of the base of the building relative to ground level (about 25 inches).

Apex of the roof is between 14.81 feet and 17.03 feet; I used a best guess of 15.92 feet.

For the total elevation of the roof, I needed the ground elevation of the building. I used points on the ground at each end of this building. This elevation was obtained from https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm. The average elevation at the ground is approximately 1333.4 feet.

So adding the 15.92 roof height you get the roof apex elevation.

Elevation of roof apex is approximately 1349.32 feet (within 1344.81...1353.83)

Next, I needed the distance from the roof's apex to the stage. Here, I used Google Maps Satellite view and used their distance measuring tool from the approximate position of Trump (40.857030, -79.970930) to the roof apex. I took samples from near each end of the building to get minimum and maximum bounds. 

Distance from Trump to roof apex is approximately 442.5 feet (within 430...455)

Now all that remains is to figure out the elevation of Trump’s head, and the rest is simple geometry and trigonometry.

Ground level at the stage was obtained from https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm using an average of elevation points around the stage area as shown here.

The average is 1337.35 (within 1336.2...1338.5). From photographs, there appear to be five steps leading up to the stage platform. Using the minimum (6.25”) and maximum (7 7/8”) standard step (riser heights) and using a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 6 steps, you get a potential range of the stage somewhere between 2.08 and 3.94 feet. So, the platform is approximately 3 feet above the ground. Trump’s height seemed a little hard to come by online. I used several sources for an average of 6.08 feet. Next you need to subtract off the distance from the top of Trump’s head to the path of the bullet. I estimated this at 7.25 inches (0.6 feet).

Adding all of this together, you get the elevation height of the bullet whizzing past Trump’s head.

Elevation of bullet at Trump’s head is approximately 1345.84 feet (within 1343.33...1348.35).

I found it interesting that the roof apex is only 5 feet higher than this. Those folks in the North bleachers were certainly right in the line of fire. I wouldn’t be surprised if the line of sight was between the heads of people on those bleachers.

All of this went into a spreadsheet:

I chose what I felt were liberal minimums and maximums to try and bound the possibilities. And the result is that the bullet would almost certainly have passed the roof apex somewhere between -2 feet below and not more than 12 feet above. Best guess value is a tad over 5 feet.

All of this is completely consistent with the shot coming from Crooks’ rifle.

This photo shows an orange box that is just eyeball estimated to stretch from about 2 feet below the roof apex to 12 feet above it.

This analysis suggests that the whizzing bullet:
    • Did not come from the water tower (light blue line)
    • Likely did not come from the windows in Crooks’ building (yellow line)
    • Likely did not come from the roof of the building behind Crooks (dark red line)

This analysis suggests that the whizzing bullet is consistent with:
    • The position of Crooks’ rifle (lighter red/orange line)
    • The windows in the building behind Crooks and to his right (dark blue line)
    • The roof of the building much further back (orange line in image below)

The building far back also matches the best guess trajectory data. However, the latest acoustic analysis does not line up with this location. Also, I believe other analysis has shown that the whizzing bullet photo is actually the bullet that struck Trump's ear (you likely aren't seeing the bullet itself, but rather the pulverized flesh** trailing behind the bullet), and that it was the first shot fired, or at least one of the first three shots fired. **see UPDATE 12 posted at the end.

Here are the same sort of calculations for this far building's roof apex.

The whizzing bullet trajectory has a best guess height above this roof of 3.09 feet.

If I were an honest and thorough investigator, I’d be making sure I completely ruled out the windows behind Crooks and to his right as well as the roofs of buildings further back. The red diamond is where Crooks was located.

As noted earlier, the fact that the trajectory is consistent with Crooks' rifle does not rule out other bullets coming from other trajectories (other postulated shooters). I will note however, that the NYT posted their whizzing bullet photo quite quickly. If this were a giant conspiracy, and the NYT was in on it (with camera presets to capture that bullet effect), then they would have needed to do this math to ensure they didn’t capture a bullet from the water tower or some other inconsistent trajectory.

If you would like me to adjust some numbers and re-run the analysis, I’d be happy to do so. Just drop me a note. Freedom of speech has allowed many theories to be voiced and consequently analyzed. The sillier ones have been rationally disposed of, for those willing to look. There remain many troubling facts surrounding this case that need thorough investigation, and I’m glad to see all who are asking the right questions and who continue to run these to ground.

Update 1: I initially supposed that Mills' camera would have been on a tripod. Turns out it was not. So, the assumption of "level with the horizon" is more suspect. I added a full +/- 2 degrees error boundary on the bullet angle to see the magnitude of the effect. This would extend the orange box about 10 feet at the top and bottom, which would include both the lower windows and the roof of the building just behind Crooks and to his right.

Update 2: I find Dr. Chris Martenson's acoustic analysis to be very compelling. I am now convinced there were at least two weapons firing TOWARDS the stage. Give this a watch. https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1814095819831902381

Update 3: Another acoustic analysis by Mike Adams identifies three separate shooter distances TOWARDS the stage. The ranges are about 450 feet (shots 1-5), about 740 feet (shot 6 - likely bolt action), and about 1400 feet (shot 7 - likely bolt action higher power cartridge). Adams believes shots 1-3 are a different weapon than shots 4-5 due to a very different sound, though the range is about the same. Likely 4 total weapons. It seems that shot 8 is the one that took out Crooks. Give this a watch. https://www.brighteon.com/a2ec2cff-0d92-4870-9629-e1fa9eb3fb09

Update 4: A comment or two about acoustic data. See updates 2 and 3 above for links to early, yet very, very compelling analysis. There were high quality microphones located at varied locations all over the venue -- from professional network news equipment to good quality cell phone mics. This data is not going away and is as unmistakable and as difficult to tamper with as fingerprint or DNA evidence. Acoustic data captures when a supersonic bullet passes the microphone (sharp snap sound) and then captures when the slower sound of the rifle cartridge explosion arrives (a duller boom sound). It is child's play to determine if the shot originated from "good guys" on the roofs behind the stage, or from a more distant threat location. It is also highly reliable to determine the rough distance to the shooter (regardless of what variety of supersonic bullet), and is extremely precise if you know the bullet type and approximate velocity. With enough microphones at enough different locations, the location of the shooters can be determined quite accurately by professional acoustic analysts using triangulation. You can be certain that professional investigators have done this already or will soon do this. The first big glaring question is: Will the public ever be told about this analysis? And the second big glaring question is: Do any serious investigative journalists exist in the mainstream who are even bringing this avenue of investigation to the public discussion right now? If not, why not? You simply cannot hope to hide actual truth like this in today's world of electronic technology. Feet must be held to the fire until this line of evidence is transparently analyzed and reported.

With the combination of these two early acoustic reports, I am now convinced there were at least 3, and probably 4 shooters. I don't think anyone who listens to these two reports would say this is an unreasonable conclusion. It would be unwise to nay-say this if you haven't taken the time to listen to both in their entirety. More may come to light. If anyone is aware of contrary acoustic analysis out there, I am completely open to my opinion being changed. So, my spit-balling, common-sense-driven thought processes lead me to the following two alternatives (based on an assumption of 4 shooters).

1. Such a conspiracy of 4 shooters would seem to be a professional operation. I find it extremely difficult to believe such a plan would have Crooks shooting first. The first three shots are evenly spaced, sound very professional, and would therefore come from someone close to Crooks (inside his building, or from the windows in the building just behind him and to his right, or even through a small hole in one of the buildings). Those shots then trigger Crooks and the other two shooters to fire. Shots 4 and 5 would be from Crooks in this alternative, and shots 6 and 7 from shooters further back.

2. Perhaps Crooks went off script and fired first. Perhaps he took those first 3 shots (or even 5 shots). This would have thrown the whole operation off. The other shooters would probably be delayed just enough that Trump had already begun to duck, thus their shots missed. Or perhaps Crooks had to remain completely ignorant of the existence of other shooters and they had no choice but to allow him to shoot first.

Update 5: One of the commenters in Mike Adams' video brought up the possibility that the snap booms from shots 6 and 7 could logically be nested. That is, snap 6 could be from a much longer range rifle such that snap 7 is associated with boom 6 and occurs prior to boom 7 which is associated with snap 6. I tried to compute the ranges for this scenario, however, this is pretty confusing due to different time scale values in Adams' video. If I deciphered that correctly, then we have Snap 6 at 9.935, Snap 7 at 10.235, Boom 6 at 10.295, and Boom 7 at 11.005. This results in a time of 0.06 seconds from snap 7 to boom 6, and 1.07 seconds from snap 6 to boom 7. These ranges would be in the ballpark of 120 feet and 1945 feet respectively. Perhaps 120 feet could be consistent with a counter-sniper returning fire on Crooks. The 1945 distance is about 650 yards. I find this interpretation unlikely, but there it is. Something else to try and confirm or eliminate. If I have time, I'll see if any buildings work out for 1400 feet and for 1945 feet. Also, for what it is worth, Dan Bongino (ex Secret Service agent) is very, very skeptical of more than one shooter, so just a reminder that caution continues to be merited for any conclusions.

Update 6: Dr. Martenson shared his audio files with Mike Adams so a more complete analysis was possible since these recordings are taken at different locations and some rough triangulation can now be performed. Adams is now confident there were 10 shots, with shot 9 being a pistol round fired from the stage area back toward Crooks by local law enforcement, and shot 10 being the SS counter sniper round that took out Crooks. The remaining 8 shots are all rifle shots traveling from the left towards the stage. Round 6 and maybe 7 have a different sound from the others (more muffled, with little or no echo off of building surfaces). These need further analysis and clarification. The largest looming question is why did the SS counter snipers fail to fire back after the first three shots. What is the typical response time to return fire if you already are aware of the shooter's location and you already have spotted and ranged his position, and your rifle is already pointed at the shooter? Is it reasonable that it would be 16 seconds after the first round before returning fire? The fact that the government seems to be stonewalling and providing almost no information to the public is not good. The fact that they claim to have no recording of the voice communications is extremely troubling. The fact that we know nothing about how many empty shell casings were on the roof is troubling (at most crime scenes they immediately mark the position of shell casings with little blue tent markers). The shell casings are tapered and would not be expected to roll all the way down the roof, they would most certainly roll in a circle until they came to rest against one of the roof ridge seams. The vacuum of information from the government is causing many more very bad theories to be aired, and it is forcing the crowd sourcing of the analysis with limited data. This paints the picture that the government desires this state of confusion.  Martenson and Adams have clear biases, however they have been begging for more audio data from attendees all along, and have now gotten that. They have been transparent with their analysis and have been willing to change their opinions. Here is the link to Adams' analysis on 2024-Jul-23: https://www.brighteon.com/268b2dc3-e9f9-4089-95a8-184ad5a383ed

Update 7: Wray testifies 8 "cartridges" were found on the roof. Dr. Martenson has refined the picture further. Many of the mysteries are now explained in this acoustic analysis. Shots 1, 2, and 3 have a very different sound from 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The podium microphone has an auto-adjust feature, so when it hears a very loud snap, it is saturated and so automatically turns down its sensitivity for a short interval of time. That is why the mic caught some snaps, but did not record the associated booms. Martenson is certainly a biased source as you can hear from his speculations, but his data analysis seems to truly be getting more and more solid. I don't think any of the proposed explanations for the sound quality differences hold water. There is definite cause to suspect two shooters. Here is a link to his latest video: https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1816269036768092383

Update 8: Dr. Martenson has now added a very important "6th" video source and the picture keeps getting clearer. The architect analysis confirms my estimation of the height of the Crooks' building roof apex (15.92 feet) and the delta elevation between where the podium was located and the base of Crooks' building (about 4 feet). Assuming the 6 audio files are raw and unaltered, the data shows that the most likely scenario is that more than one hostile weapon was involved. My critique of Martenson's latest video is as follows:

1) For shots 1 and 8, while the mic orientation is consistent, the position difference may be significant. It is possible that for shot 1 the tree trunk may have been between Stewart and Crooks. You notice the leaves hanging down into the frame for shot 8, he appears to be to the right side of the tree trunk. For frame 1 the leaves from the left side of the tree trunk appear to be shown. This means there is a small possibility that the tree trunk could be right in-line with Crooks. This could theoretically account for some audio differences.

2) When comparing the amount of low-frequency sounds using the graphs, the wide spacing of shots 1, 2, and 3 can make it appear "more blue than orange". It seems better to squeeze shots 1-3 together to visually compare these. I performed this squeeze, and this is the result:

Focus on the area in the two light blue rectangles. The area Martenson annotates with the green line isn't as obviously different in this image as in the image he shows, however when you look at "center of mass" of these brighter yellow areas, Martenson is correct that the first three shots center around 600-650 Hz, while shots 4-8 center around 400 Hz. Also, the difference in the area of the white line (10-200 Hz) is clearly very different.

3) I am also very curious about the ricochet sound seen in the audio of shot 1. What accounts for the time duration between the initial sound and the ricochet spike on the graph? It would seem to be a "range" effect. If so, what two events would cause the initial sound and the ricochet spike? The "ricochet sound" is present in shots 1, 2, and 3, so I do not believe it is an actual ricochet.

Here is the link to Martenson's latest video: https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1818076611289415685

Update 9: There is an interesting video taken by one of the people on the far side of Trump who was critically injured by gunfire and/or shrapnel https://www.foxnews.com/us/video-from-trump-assassination-attempt-victims-pov-shows-figure-moving-roof-moments-before-gunfire. Well, that Fox News link is no longer valid. Here is another source for it: https://vigilantnews.com/post/shocking-new-footage-shows-someone-crooks-running-on-the-roof-moments-before-trump-was-shot/. You can clearly see what is apparently Crooks running left-to-right across the roof shortly before the shots (running from the area of the taller building towards his eventual ending position). You can also really see the angles and trajectories from his view. What officials have said about Crooks not being visible to the SS snipers until just before the shots began is simply not true (assuming this video is legit). You can also note the difference in trajectories between Trump and Comperatore. Comperatore is the gentleman in the upper left of the bleachers with a dark baseball cap who was killed by one of the shots.

The acoustic data continues to be compelling, with at least 8 different recordings from different locations undergoing some analysis. There is absolutely no doubt that shots 1-3 sound very different from shots 5-8. This is particularly true for the audio sources located to the west of Crooks' building (a perspective from the right side of Crooks). However, there continue to be several potential explanations for these sound differences. I have these in descending order of likelihood (my judgment based on the acoustic data, and the fact that some of these possibilities have zero proof or supporting evidence at this point in time).

1) Two different weapons is the most logical explanation with quite a bit of supporting data. Different weapons can sound very different, particularly if not located in the same place, or if one is firing from inside a building where the high frequency noise will not propagate to the sides. These graphics illustrate such a scenario.

2) Crooks may have been very low for the first 3 shots, then when he saw he missed, he may have raised up to fire shots 4-8. This could possibly change the sound quality, but those side aspect microphones sound VERY different between the groups, so I have doubts about this explanation.

3) The two sources from the side were not pointing in exactly the same direction for the two groups of shots. Note however, that cell phones have omni-directional mics, so a 30-degree or so change in aspect isn't likely to make very much difference.

4) For the source from directly in front of that building, the angles are roughly the same, but there is a slight possibility there could be a tree trunk directly in the line between the microphone and the shooter for the first three shots. This might affect the sound quality for those shots.

5) And the newest possibility is based on an odd configuration of Crooks' rifle. There was a red dot sight mounted on top of the rifle and two flip-up iron sights mounted on the SIDE of his rifle (this is an almost unheard of configuration). In theory, this could allow Crooks to tilt his rifle over sideways so that the long 30-round magazine would not contact the roof and require him to elevate his position and be more exposed. He would be able to fire using iron sights while keeping his head a bit lower, though managing recoil with a sideways rifle would seem very challenging (though AR-15 recoil is much tamer than many rifles). The reason this might affect the sound is that it appears that he had some sort of flash suppressor on the end of his barrel. If that flash suppressor directs gases to the sides and not vertically, then the sound could be different if the shots are fired with the rifle vertical versus sideways. So, if shots 1-3 were shot sideways, and 4-8 were shot vertically, then the sound could be different. I am skeptical of this resulting in very different acoustics in the high/low frequencies. Someone needs to test such flash suppressors and bring that data to the table if this theory is to be pushed.

6) There could have been different ammo types for shots 1-3 versus 4-8. It is VERY unlikely the sound would be that different based on ammo alone. (Note: It is also odd that we have been given zero information about the type of shell casings found and what type of ammo may have been used. I don't know how easy it is to identify all the different places where bullets struck people, bleachers, and the ground, but that information could help answer trajectory questions. The general lack of information flow and briefings held by the protective teams and leadership is very, very troubling.)

Update 10: There is another video floating out there that I am quite certain is fake. It purports to show ANOTHER "bullet" captured in flight from the OTHER side of the venue. They claim they have a subsonic acoustic signature for this (a silenced weapon). Folks, the geometry doesn't work. Such a shot would have had to have been taken from within 60 feet of Trump. No way.

I snipped out a portion of the last frame containing the "bullet" to paste on top of the first frame containing the "bullet". I selected this region so that it could be easily aligned with the light pole in the lower left of the images. Trump's jacket is moving around a bit from frame to frame, but the light pole vertical and horizontal components provide a fixed reference for tying these two frames together.

The resulting angle has a rise of 77 pixels over a run of 603 pixels which calculates out to 7.28 degrees using the trigonometric TOA rule.

The "bullet" passes Trump at the ribcage area. Let's estimate that at 2/3 of his height, and Trump is about 6.1 feet tall.

Again, the platform Trump is standing on looks to have 5 steps, so it would be about 3-4 feet above the ground. Let's call it 3.5 feet.

So when it passes Trump it would be approximately 7.56 feet above the ground.

If we project that 7.28 degree angle out toward the crowd from there, we can see where it would strike the ground. That comes out to about 60 feet, again using the trigonometric TOA rule.

Update 11: The latest Martenson video update has audio analysis from a full-resolution higher-quality audio file from Source 4 which was over to Crooks' right. https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1820989291524472877

The data still more strongly supports two different weapons firing toward the stage. The timing of the echoes produced by shots 1-3 at 0.08 seconds are very different from the echoes produced by shots 4 and 8 (at 0.17 seconds).  The orientation of the microphone would not affect the timing of these echoes. Additionally, the frequencies are very different. Note the bright yellow of shots 1-3 is lower (deeper sounds) on the graph than for shots 4-8. There is also much more high frequency sound for shots 4-8 (the orange area between the bright yellow and the black region above). These visible artifacts in this graph are very clear to the ear when you listen to this audio.

If there were two shooters, where would the second one be located? The windows in Crooks' building (6) below him were apparently checked right after the shots and all appeared to be closed. Other options include: 1) Some sort of hole in building 6. The image below suggests a few places that an on-the-scene investigator might want to rule out. Martenson's video has an internal building diagram of this scenario.

2) On the roof of building 6 hidden at the far South end behind the parapet at the main building entrance. This is about 40 feet to Crooks' left per Martenson's video.

3) The open windows in the building behind and to Crooks' right seem to be the most obvious possibility.

Martenson also notes the peculiar silence about the investigation and the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. Noteworthy points are:

1. The crime scene was immediately dismantled so that the bleachers and stage can no longer be as accurately analyzed.
2. We don't know the names of several key individuals (officer being lifted up to the roof, officers in the building behind Crooks, the SS officer inside building 6, the name and location of the officer who fired shot 9 at Crooks).
3. We don't know any details about Crooks' rifle and the brass casings. What is the model of the rifle, what are all the attachments, had it clearly been fired, do the brass casings all match the rifle (firing pin indentations, ejector markings)?
4. How did the SS know that "the shooter is down"? How did they know there was only one shooter and submit to Trump standing back up and being exposed again?

If the shots all came from Crooks' rifle, this video shows at least some evidence for some of the trajectories involved. https://youtu.be/-w2lVIJc000

Update 12: It is not conclusive that that whizzing bullet image is pulverized flesh. Further analysis suggests that it is not. The camera is not technically capable of capturing the bullet as a blur, so we are not seeing the bullet itself. However, it has been demonstrated that the disruption of the atmosphere can cause such a whizzing image. In fact, Trump was struck on the upper part of his ear, and this trajectory would more line up with the very bottom of his ear, so Mills apparently capture one of the other three first shots, among which there was one that struck the ear.

Questions citizens often ask (or should be asking)...

1. How is it that congress persons become VERY wealthy while in office, despite drawing a relatively modest salary?
2. Is it true that the "permanent bureaucracy" in Washington is actually running the country, rather than our elected officials?
3. To what extent do our intelligence agencies compose and/or drive this "permanent bureaucracy"?

To attempt answering these questions, let us examine congressman Henry Cuellar as a case study, and see what dots we can logically connect with very high probability. Cuellar's 54-page indictment was just made public this past Friday. Everyone should read (or skim it) [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24636508-cuellar-indictment].

Here is a quick summary...

1. Congressman Henry Cuellar gets elected in 2004. Fact.
2. Congressman Cuellar gets involved in taking bribes from foreign countries as early as 2014. Fact.
3. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this illegal activity right about when it first occurs (2014). There is ample evidence that our congress persons are under heavy surveillance (electronic communications, etc). Probability: 99+% (my estimate)
4. Intelligence agencies likely help facilitate the communication/travel for foreign government activities for which they have a desire to support. Probability: 60+% (my very conservative estimate)
5. Congressman takes an action that is very displeasing to the permanent bureaucracy. In this case Henry Cuellar (D) was very vocal publically about the Biden border crisis (in late 2021). Fact.
6. A few short weeks later (Jan 2022), Cuellar is raided by the FBI and he and his wife are indicted for bribery, wire fraud, FARA, and money laundering. Fact. [The FBI has almost certainly been aware of the illegal activity for 8 years, yet only acts immediately after this "mis-step". https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-raid-us-rep-henry-cuellars-texas-home-office-said-tied-azerbaijan-rcna13005]
7. Virtually all congress persons (both parties) are involved in similar questionable fund-raising activities. Probability: 95+% (my estimate)
8. All these congress persons most certainly took notice of the clear example of what happens when one of their number steps out of line from the permanent bureaucracy.

Even if an elected official hasn't done anything too terribly wrong, that doesn't mean there is no fear. Go look into how many whistleblowers have wound up being found guilty of something (naughty stuff on their computers, for instance, perhaps planted - six ways to Sunday??).

Congressional officials have multiple avenues for making side-hustle money besides bribery from foreign countries. These include: money laundering of US Aid to foreign countries coming back into the pockets of US officials; insider trading to make wildly successful investments in companies that are favored by US policy; and bribes from companies (foreign and domestic) to enact legislation that favors that company. Most of this activity is hidden through family members and shell companies.

The comment from Cuellar is telling: “I want to be clear that both my wife and I are innocent of these allegations. Everything I have done in Congress has been to serve the people of South Texas,” Cuellar said in his statement, later adding: “The actions I took in Congress were consistent with the actions of many of my colleagues and in the interest of the American people.”

It is important to understand that the DNC and RNC are NOT a part of our government. The Democrat and Republican parties are private corporations that operate by their own made-up rules. There are virtually no candidates that rise to the general election that are not hand-selected by these parties. The probability that they are leveraged, or highly likely to be leverageable is extremely high. Think John Gresham's "The Firm" and avoid pretending this is not the case. There are trillions of dollars and global power at stake. It is extremely rare that anyone rises to high office that is not controllable. One might at least consider if this might be a factor in the intense level of hate-manufacturing propaganda that has been generated toward a certain high-profile political figure.

Our government hasn't operated per the constitution for a very long time. Our representatives do not represent we the people. Taxation without representation is a fact that becomes more clear with each passing day.

We gotta gotta gotta enact term limits. The federal government will never do this themselves. The only avenue is for the states to act. A convention of states is desperately needed to do this one single thing. The constitution was designed and written to give us this offensive action to defend our constitutional republic. Time to do it.

P.S. We have another more recent example: Eric Adams, mayor of NY City. Here is a link describing his criticism of the feds and the results from that: https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/nyc-mayor-eric-adams-blames-migrant-crisis-democratic-criticism-for-indictment-new-york-city-federal-corruption-probe-illegal-immigration-biden-harris-administration-unsealed-indictment.

P.P.S. I have no intent of Epsteining myself, and to my knowledge I have never had illegal naughty stuff on my electronic devices.

INTRODUCTION:

We are in a big mess as a nation, and government isn't going to save us (and that includes Trump). Our problems are spiritual, cultural, and civil and they go deep and broad, metastasized through the grass-roots level.

As I said, Trump should not be relied upon to save us. To be fair, I have spoken positively about some of his policy approaches and his seeming genuine concern for the nation. However, I am not interested in trying to defend him based on his character. I have been outspoken about my dislike of Trump from the beginning. I have posted numerous times about his pride, immorality (past and present), his propensity to lie (particularly about his accomplishments), his pettiness, his crassness (diarrhea of the mouth), and his continuation of big government spending. These weaknesses provide a shaky foundation for trust.

That said, I will defend Trump when he is unfairly and illegally targeted by a weaponized federal government. I have spoken against politically motivated attacks before, even against politicians I do not like. I had a strong distaste for the attacks on President Clinton when he was impeached (and I was no fan of Clinton).

Finally, by way of introduction, our government seems intent on dividing us one against another, and Trump seems rather willing to help with that (mocking isn't going to unite). Refuse to take the bait, whoever may be casting it before you. Your fellow citizens whom you might imagine to be uninformed supporters of the Democrat party or the Republican party are not your enemy. All fellow citizens have legitimate reason to distrust both parties and their respective leaders. Disregard the inflammatory rhetoric and the marionettes out front and dig deep into the evidence.

The evidence I am concerned with is the weaponization of government against political foes, with specific focus on the eye-opening story of the pipe bombs of January 5th and 6th, 2021. It is time for some light - the God-designed disinfectant.

THE GOVERNMENT NARRATIVE and OBSERVATIONS/FACTS:

The government writ large wants us to believe the Jan 6 events were the biggest domestic terror events in history (on par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11). The fact, however, is that the single most "terror-like" action taken that day was the planting of pipe bombs, yet our government and media have routinely omitted and/or suppressed this story for years now after having made a very big deal about it in the first few days following the events.

If you believe the government narrative concerning the January 6 pipe bombs, it seems you must believe ALL of the following (sources and credits are provided in links further down):

1. You must believe that Kamala Harris' Secret Service detail is completely inept. See the video (link below) of SS officers in a black SUV and capitol police officers in a capitol police SUV who are attached as part of the SS detail). They are utterly unconcerned when they are informed there is a pipe bomb in very near vicinity to them and to their protectee inside the DNC headquarters.

2. You must believe the officers have no concern for the safety of school children walking right in front of the bomb (along the sidewalk area, about 4 or 5 scooter lengths away).

3. You must believe that the pipe bomb had been sitting in a fairly conspicuous location, on a high foot-traffic day, for 16+ hours without being discovered.

4. You must believe that the Secret Service failed to detect the pipe bomb when they did a sweep of the area prior to Kamala Harris' arrival. The August 2024 OIG report confirms the SS did a sweep of the DNC prior to Harris' arrival.

5. You must believe that the bomb-sniffing dogs that did a second sweep of that very area 20 minutes prior to its discovery also failed to discover the bomb. The August 2024 OIG report confirms there were two sweeps by canine teams. The report also calls into question the truthfulness of SS excuses for how these sweeps failed.

6. You must believe that the geo-fencing data for this area of the capitol was coincidentally corrupted so that they were not able to trace the cell-phones moving about in this area when the bombs were planted. Note that geo-fencing data has been used extensively to identify and imprison many who were within the capitol grounds. Note also that the head of the investigation (Steven D’Antuono) which announced this "data corruption" is the same individual who was in charge of the Michigan field office that ran the Whitmer kidnapping plot investigation, and who was then promptly promoted to this prominent DC position.

7. You must believe that it was a coincidence that the "RNC pipe bomb" (actually in a back alley behind a dumpster near by the capitol hill club) was found just 17 minutes prior to the initial capitol fence breach after having been in place for 16+ hours. Capitol police began responding to the pipe bomb at 12:50 and the breach occurred at 12:53. Security officials are on record as saying that the reason there weren’t more bike rack barriers at the Ray Epps Breach point is that they couldn’t deliver them at the critical moment due to law enforcement responding to the discovery of the pipe bombs.

8. You must believe it was a coincidence that the RNC pipe bomb kitchen timer was "stuck" at the position showing "20 minutes to go". Recall that the bomb was discovered at 12:40 (so the dial indicated a 1 PM detonation when found) which is the precise time the vote certification process was to begin in Congress (and right when the capitol breach would be underway).

9. You must believe it was just a coincidence that the DNC bomb was discovered only 15 minutes after the RNC bomb, when both had been planted for 16+ hours.

10. You must believe it is a coincidence that Ray Epps (in Arizona) claimed to have "heard in advance" of plans for explosives to be planted on side streets to cause diversions on Jan 6.

11. You must believe it is a coincidence that Liz Cheney also had a premonition about bombs on J6. She appears to have been the first official to predict that a bomb could disrupt the joint session that day—a scenario she had contemplated on at least three separate occasions leading up to that day. She worried: "If someone called in a bomb threat and the Capitol was evacuated, were arrangements in place for Congress to meet somewhere else?" Yet she did not investigate the pipe bombs from her position of authority with the J6 Committee (2.5 pages in an appendix).

12. You must believe the FBI has good reason to withhold video footage that would provide clear pictures of the pipe bomber actually planting the DNC bomb. We know there is a camera with a clear viewing angle of that exact area - some video was released from that camera. Also, you must believe the original frame rate on the video we WERE given (from a bad camera angle) was 1.6 frames per second. It is really hard to even find a camera this bad. The cheapest camera generally available is 8 frames per second. Video footage also seems to be withheld showing the two sweeps of the canine teams.

13. You must believe that the "random pedestrian" that found the RNC pipe bomb was a random pedestrian. Karlin Younger worked at FirstNet Authority (which has the head of DHS and DOJ on its board) and was responsible for the system that ensures usable cell-phone communications for first responders during emergencies (which was credited with working well during J6). FirstNet Authority received a $92 million dollar contract from the FBI less than a month before J6. Younger now works for Pendulum and her job is fighting disinformation narratives on behalf of their government clients. She is a project manager and is "building out the Pendulum platform to empower narrative-based intelligence". See later comments for the source link, which includes a detailed analysis of Pendulum and its staff. Note that it is standard law enforcement procedure to consider the "discoverer" of such a device as a suspect. Seems like a legit procedure (she was never questioned by the FBI).

14. You must believe the excuse given for the lackadaisical response to the pipe bomb: that the response was deliberately designed so as not to cause panic among the public. This answer is so unbelievable that it should be clear that they are covering up the real story.

15. You must believe that the reason they looked for a second pipe bomb was "on a hunch" that there might be one at DNC because there was one at RNC. Pipe bombers have to be bipartisan, don't ya know?

16. You must believe that they just KNEW there wouldn't be MORE than two pipe bombs, so it was completely natural to stop looking after finding the second bomb.

17. You must believe that Ashan Benedict, the ATF special agent in charge for all of Washington, D.C., believes these narratives to be true. He stated or nodded his approval to these three narratives (lackadaisical response, hunch to look at DNC, knowing not to look for more) during testimony. This is a man with a 20-year career as an ATF agent.

18. You must believe that all these agents completely forgot that there actually WAS discussion at the time that there might be more than two bombs. Heavily redacted ATF text messages were recently released under a FOIA request. These text messages show Benedict in the chats with others who are discussing there being as many as five pipe bombs.

19. You must believe that there is a reasonable explanation for the odd (yet convenient) career path for Benedict. In April 21 he left a 20-year ATF career to take a temporary position in a LOCAL police force - DC Metro Police (assistant chief, promoted to interim chief in May) [a force which was under scrutiny in those few months after J6]. He left that position in Nov 23 to join the US Capitol Police as assistant chief. His role includes intelligence and counterintelligence. This makes him gatekeeper for any efforts to investigate irregularities in the Jan 6 narrative (e.g., the name of the Capitol Police plainclothes agent who "discovered" the DNC bomb). [Peter Daszak and EcoHealthAlliance ringing any parallel bells? It seems that many investigations have an odor of actually ensuring certain information doesn't leak out.]

20. You must believe it was reasonable for Donell Harvin (Homeland Security) to assign his most junior analyst to the task of analyzing what Harvin realized was overwhelming evidence of serious trouble brewing in the days leading up to J6. Also note that there is incredible cross-pollination between FirstNet (Karlin Younger's organization) and HSEMA (Donell Harvin's agency). 

21. You must believe that Harvin's junior analyst just happened to predict and NAIL what actually happened on J6 as his "worst-case scenario." His worst case scenario WASN'T that the pipe bombs would explode and cause mass casualties. His worst case scenario was that the bombs would serve as a diversion that would allow extremists to attack government buildings such as the Capitol. Remarkable!

22. You must believe it was reasonable for Donell Harvin to omit this amazingly accurate prediction about the pipe bombs in the weeks following J6. Harvin left his Homeland Security job and entered the media circuits. There was interview after interview where his foreknowledge of J6 events was touted, yet the most amazing prediction (use of pipe bombs) wasn't milked.

23. You must believe that it is standard/acceptable practice for an officer to take a single photograph of the DNC bomb from just one angle (and to then give the SS detail a thumbs up).

24. You must believe Kamala Harris had a valid reason for not milking the fact that she was in the danger zone of this pipe bomb (in fact she has gone out of the way to hide the fact that she was in the building). If J6 is what they claim it is, the pipe bomb narrative should have been THE most convincing story and should have been front and center.

25. You must believe that the FBI did NOT in fact identify the car used by the pipe bomber despite whistleblower testimony stating they have video of the car and license plate after the bomber exited a Metro station.

26. You must believe that it is a coincidence that all secret service text messages from J6 were somehow permanently deleted with no backups preserved.

27. You must believe it is coincidence that the SS just happened to fail to log this "Unusual Protective Event" (UPE) as would be required and expected per SS policies (confirmed by the 2024 OIG report).

28. You must believe the release of the 2024 OIG report and its confirmation of several of these details warrants virtually zero coverage by the mainstream media.

29. You must believe that either the FBI or Karlin Younger are lying. The standard narrative of the FBI is that there was a highly coordinated plan to plant the pipe bombs on January 5th (they showed us poor quality video as evidence). However, Karlin Younger, who discovered the first pipe bomb testifies that the bomb was NOT there when she took her laundry to start (at noon on January 6) but it WAS there 40 minutes later (12:40 pm on January 6). These accounts cannot both be true. According to Younger, the bomb had to be planted in broad daylight as the J6 events were unfolding.

C'mon folks. Time to stop pretending and face the fact that something is very wrong with this picture.

I don't think you have to be that great at math - though I may be missing something. Just assign a conservative probability (a number between 0 and 1) to each of these items and do some back-of-the-napkin calculation. Generally speaking, all those probabilities need to be multiplied together. If you have 4 events that all must be true, and the probability is 0.5 for each of them, then you get 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.0625, so about a 6% chance that these four events all occurred (assuming the events are independent). What tiny number would you come up with multiplying 29 such numbers together (or even just the 10 most credible yet unlikely events)?

VIDEOS and other LINKS:

Video of the pipe bomb discovery and the lackadaisical response: https://revolver.news/2024/01/secret-service-foreknowledge-or-criminal-negligence-damning-new-evidence-surfaces-fbi-january-6-pipe-bomb-story/?utm_source=left-rail-latest

Video of bomb sniffing dogs 20 minutes prior to the pipe bomb discovery:
https://www.declassified.live/p/bomb-sniffing-dog-performed-vehicle

ATF text chats regarding pipe bomb response: https://revolver.news/2024/03/mop-up-man-ashan-benedict-is-this-former-atf-agent-running-j6-pipe-bomb-coverup/

Karlin Younger (RNC pipe bomb discoverer) corporate ties: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1748480778445447323.html

Ray Epps: Part 1 - https://revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/ Part 2 - https://revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/

Interview with Darren Beattie: https://rumble.com/v4dn5cu-jan-6-pipe-bomb-truth-with-darren-beattie.html

Strong argument that the pipe bomber video was artificially degraded, and a discussion of D'Antuono admitting the narrative is shaky: https://revolver.news/2023/06/steven-d-antuono-former-head-of-fbi-jan-6-pipe-bomb-investigation-comes-clean-with-stunning-admission/

Washington Post "Red Flags" article (https://archive.fo/UCWAP) that chronicles vast foreknowledge of J6 troublemakers, which should have resulted in a truly prepared defense of the Capitol. Donell Harvin is featured along with his Nostradamus-level prediction of pipe bombs being used for a diversion, along with the expected focal point being the Capitol building at 1 PM. Everything went down in a short time window around 1 PM (12:40 RNC bomb discovered, 12:50 responders move away toward pipe bombs, 12:53 initial breach of fencing (by Ray Epps), 1:00 scheduled start of vote certification proceedings, 1:05 DNC bomb discovered). Recall that FBI director Christopher Wray told Amy Klobuchar that officials were simply caught off guard on J6 (per https://revolver.news/2024/05/meet-donell-harvin-trump-hating-deep-state-official-who-predicted-j6-pipe-bombs-in-advance/).

Car of the bomber reported to be identified: https://www.cf.org/news/the-fbi-knows-what-car-was-used-in-jan-6-pipe-bomb-but-refuses-to-identify-prime-suspect/

Deleted secret service texts: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/secret-service-deleted-january-6-texts/670597/ (note THEIR conspiracy theory when they surmise that any supposed dark conspiracy would have been SS agents trying to help Trump stage a coup - that's the Atlantic for you). See also here: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/20/we-have-a-new-twist-in-the-january-6-pipe-bomb-story-n2635446 and here https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1870867919799828648

Reporting on the 2024 OIG report: https://revolver.news/2024/08/media-silent-damning-oig-report-confirms-kamala-secret-service-role-in-pipe-bomb-hoax/

Cheney predictions: https://www.declassified.live/p/liz-cheney-predicted-the-jan-6-bomb

2025 October newly released FBI materials on Karlin Younger's account: https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1973036785925247079.

WHY IT MATTERS:

If it turns out our security apparatus did rig the pipe bomb scenario and narrative, then we must face the reality that this was a very large operation in its own right (likely involving members of both parties). And people should not be considered crazy for beginning to suspect that the J6 events at large need some real investigation.

The national security state (the intelligence community) has reinvented itself to look inward instead of outward, and the facts indicate that their actions are heavily biased along certain political lines. Eventually, to whatever degree our government becomes evil and weaponized, it seems reasonable to expect that ALL upstanding citizens will at some point be "across the political aisle" from them. As has been famously stated before, there is a need to speak up to defend victims of political targeting lest we ourselves become targeted and there is no one left to speak up.

The 702 FISA was reauthorized in April 2024. There was a big push by many citizens to stop the invasion of privacy that has been taking place with government surveillance using the FISA process. There is clear evidence this capability has been misused and appears to be clearly unconstitutional. The information gleaned in this surveillance is immense raw power which feeds the intelligence community.

Furthermore, the narrative for the coming elections will continue to hinge on Jan 6 being portrayed purely as domestic citizens threatening democracy. If this turns out to be a deceptive message, it is critical that the American people be aware of this. Even though it was more than 3 years ago, Jan 6 remains a very live issue and is the primary "legal pretext" being used to try and remove candidates from 2024 ballots and to campaign for many on the ballot.

If the J6 pipe bomb scenario (and perhaps more) was rigged, then these people don't need to be anywhere near the levers of power and foreign policy. There is likely nothing they wouldn't do to retain their power. Those with draft age children ought to be wide awake with ears perked. Any politician (either party) who pretends our intelligence/security apparatus is fine is not to be trusted.

Certainly addressing spiritual problems and putting it in God's hands through prayer is the ultimate answer. Recognize, however, that sharing this story and shining light on darkness can change things too. Light is a God-designed disinfectant (Eph 5:11).

P.S. Politicians do not start parades, they join them. Grass roots efforts, with informed people speaking out, have more power than we often realize.