Originally I thought I would be releasing this Special Report two days ago, on Saturday, but the deeper I dug into Chris Martenson’s sound analysis which has formed the basis for most theories that there was a second shooter, the more questions I encountered. Finding the answers to those questions so I can report them to you has taken a full three days of work. And that’s 3 twelve-hour days. What you will see in this report has never before been reported, and I believe, the facts and theories I will give you today will make sense out of many things that up until now did not, with even the answers to some questions that no one has yet thought to ask. Two weeks after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, many people now believe there was a second shooter while others continue to believe that Thomas Crooks acted alone. In this update, I’m going to examine both sides of that argum ent. I am also going to reproduce the sound analysis by Dr. Chris Martenson, using exactly the same sound files and exactly the same program, and show that he made a number of errors in his analysis. Finally, I’m going to give you my own theory on the last moments of Thomas Crooks life. A theory which I believe makes sense out of many things that until now, simply did not add up. If you haven’t yet watched my full free report on Everything We Know About the Trump Shooting, which I posted July 19th, I invite you to do so now. Everything you are about to see will make more sense with that context to work from. You’ll find a link to that report directly beneath this one First, let’s get out of the way a few common errors made by mainstream media, which has definitely added to the confusion. In almost all cases mainstream media got the location of Thomas Crooks on the roof wrong, at least initially. In picture after picture, they show Crooks here, near the west end of the building, when in fact he was here, near the east end. This is a vitally important fact. There was also a lot of confusion over whether or not Crooks used a ladder to access the roof, with some news outlets reporting he had purchased a 5 foot ladder and others saying 10. I myself got this wrong when I reported last week that he had bought a 10 foot ladder that morning. A receipt purportedly found on Crooks after his death shows he bought a 5 foot ladder, but the ladder was not found at the site. The ladder which is shown in this image, which many believed Crooks used to access the roof, was in fact placed there later by police. We will never know how Crooks got onto the roof as no one saw him climb up. In addition, many news outlets reported he was on the roof 20 minutes before opening fire. According to testimony at the hearing Crooks was on the roof at most 3 minutes before the first shots. Crooks was reported to be wearing long white pants by some, and shorts by others, leading some conspiracy theorists to believe the body found on the roof was not Crooks. However, we can see in this video that the impression he was wearing long white pants was simply the result of poor resolution on the camera which recorded him on the roof. Many asked how a man carrying a rifle could have been allowed to climb a building less than 150 meters from where Trump was speaking. According to Chris Wray, Director of the FBI, Crooks’ gun had a collapsible stock, so it may have been possible for Crooks to conceal the gun as he approached the building, possibly in the backpack he was seen to be carrying. Many illustrations of the scene show Crooks’ AR15 equipped with a scope. This is incorrect. His gun did not have scope. He was aiming with the iron sights. Also, questions have been asked how a man carrying a range finder was allowed on the premises. It turns out that Crooks was carrying a golfing range finder, and not one made for shooting, however as you can see from this image they are very similar. The two most common theories for the location of a second shooter are on top of the water tower,  or a sniper shooting from inside one of the nearby buildings, most likely the building directly behind Crooks. The water tower is the easiest to deal with. I won’t spend much time on this as it has already been debunked by others. First any shots taken from the top of the water tower would have hit people in the standing area to the front right of the podium, not people in the bleachers beside it. Second, there is no safe way to get on top of the tower. Given that, if a shooter had been there why would they not have shot from the catwalk around it? There would be no reason to risk life and limb climbing on top of the tank. The second theory, that there was a shooter in the building directly behind Thomas Crooks is more plausible. We’ll look at both sides of that argument as this report progresses. The arguments for a second shooter are based almost entirely on an analysis of the audio of the shots by economic researcher Chris Martenson, founder of Peak Prosperity, who holds a doctorate in neurotoxicology. Dr. Martenson admits he is not an expert at analysing sound however I spoke with Glenn Meder of the Privacy Academy who knows him personally and Glenn says that Chris is a very competent and intellectually honest researcher. As support for his analysis Chris points out that a separate analysis from the National Center for Media Forensics concluded much the same thing, however note that the establishment of the NCMF was supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, including the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, so the NCMF is a case of the government working for the government. The AR15 rifle fires bullets at supersonic speeds, between 2600 and 3200 feet per second, where the speed of sound at ground level in Butler, Pennsylvania would have been approximately 1100 feet per second. This means that listening to a shot from this rifle from a distance, you will hear the crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier before you hear the shot itself being fired. And also that analysts who are experts in this area can calculate from the delay between the ‘crack’ (the bullet breaking the sound barrier) and the ‘pop’ (the shot being fired) how far away the shooter is. Chris explains this in his video and he’s absolutely correct about that part. In this audio from the news microphone facing the podium, Chris points out that the first three shots were evenly spaced, slightly less than a second apart, with the pop clearly visible in the waveform .22 seconds after the crack, placing the shooter about 135 meters away, which is consistent with where Crooks was shooting from. Then, two and half seconds later there were five more shots grouped much closer together, all five shots being fired in just under one second.  There was a final shot, 15.8 seconds after the first shot was fired, almost certainly the Secret Service sniper who shot Crooks in the head. Note that I didn’t say ‘killed Crooks’ as I have a theory to suggest that he was already dead or dying when the sniper shot him. There is also on the waveform a peak which Martenson identifies as a possible 9^th shot. We do know that a ninth shot was fired, by a Butler County ESU officer, but that peak is not the 9^th shot as I will demonstrate conclusively later in this report. ESU stands for Emergency Service Unit. An ESU is somewhat similar to a SWAT team. We have no details on which officer fired the shot, where the officer was or even if they had a line of sight on Crooks. This is vital information, however I have a strong theory, supported by the sound files as to where the officer fired from. The first set of 3 shots were spaced about one second apart. The second set of five shots were all fired in slightly less than one second. Could Crooks even fire that fast? Last week I reported that the firing rate of the AR15 is approximately one round per second, however, upon further research I discovered that rate of fire assumes careful aiming and firing, as well as reload time. Thomas Crooks did not need to reload as the minimum magazine for the AR15 holds ten rounds, and can hold up to 40. 8 shots were fired from Crooks’ position. Law enforcement says they found 8 casings on the roof and while we have no direct proof of that it is supported by the audio analysis. At least by my analysis, if not by Chris Martenson’s. The AR15 can in fact fire up to 800 rounds per minute, so there is no issue with the timing of the shots. It could be two guns, or it could just be Crooks. The rate of fire of the gun is more than sufficient to fire those shots within the time frame. Martenson’s belief that there was a second shooter is based upon the second set of shots sounding different from the first set in audio from the phone camera of a spectator, and from anomalies he feels are present on some of the shots recorded by the news camera which was positioned on a platform in front of the stage. Here is Martenson’s explanation along with the audio he is referencing. Other critics of Dr. Martenson’s analysis have offered plausible explanations for both the different sound quality and the lack of echoes on the first three shots. What can be clearly seen in the video from the phone is that the person holding it turned almost 180 degrees after the first three shots. Youtuber Jeff Ostrof covers this in detail. Here is a 3 minute clip from Jeff’s video. I work with microphones on an almost daily basis and I can confirm that changing the orientation of the microphone will definitely affect the tone and quality of the audio, so that is an entirely plausible explanation for the different sound of the shots. I also have to agree with Ostrof that a change in direction of the phone would explain the presence or absence of echoes. During the first three shots the camera is facing a small crowd under a tree. There is nothing in that direction for the shots to echo from, but after the camera is turned, now it’s facing buildings and the large signs to either side of Trump. These would produce the echoes heard in the second set of shots. But there’s another very important point and I’m surprised that Martenson didn’t cover this. In his video, Chris plays the news camera footage of the shooting at the 6:24 mark running from the first shots to the Secret Service sniper shot almost 16 seconds after. Later he isolates and plays the first three shots from that camera to demonstrate the crack/pop sequence showing that the supersonic sound of the bullet reaches the microphone before the sound of the gun firing, but then he never plays from this audio track again. He never analyses the last five shots from the audio on the news camera. If he had, he might have found what I did. Something that to date, no one else has noticed or reported on. As they used to say in the old days of investigative journalism, “Remember, folks, you heard it here first.” In the audio where we can hear the sound changing between the first 3 shots and the last 5, Chris used the audio from the phone. But what about the audio from the news camera? I exported the audio from Chris’s video for both cameras and opened it up in Audacity, the same program that Chris used. Audacity is a free sound editing app that anyone can download. As a journalist, I have Adobe Audition, which is much better sound editing software, but in order to replicate what Chris did I’ve stuck to using Audacity. You can see here my audio that was pulled from Martenson’s video, and the waveform he displayed, and they are exactly the same. What you’re seeing here is Audacity. On the top is the audio from the news camera, as exported directly from Chris’s video. On the bottom is the audio from the cell phone. As Chris did I’ve lined up the shots. Here’s the cell phone audio where you can hear the change in sound between the two sets of shots, but Jeff Ostrof already explained why that would have happened. If the change in sound was caused by two different guns then we would hear that on the news camera audio, which was stationary in front of the platform where Trump was speaking. As you can hear, the two sets of shots sound exactly the same, except once again for what Martenson is calling shot 9, which sounds different on both recordings. And also the actual shot 9, which is definitely from a different gun, as is shot 10, the sniper shot that put a bullet through Crooks’ head. Here they are again. The cell phone audio. Now the news camera audio. Additionally, what Martenson is seeing as an echo on the news camera recording is not, in my analysis, an echo at all, although I can understand given the regular spacing of this sound after the crack of the shot why Chris would think that. Also, the fact there is an echo on the second set of shots from the cell phone could also lead Chris to think those peaks in the news camera waveform are echoes. But as I’m about to demonstrate those in-between peaks are not echoes, and knowing that will help us to solve at least part of the mystery. Here is the crack of the fourth shot from the news camera, and here is the pop, the sound of the shot being fired. And here, in between is the waveform that Chris identifies as an echo. Listen to it again.   I listened to this several times, and while I’ll be the first to admit my eyesight is terrible, I have very acute hearing. I did not hear an echo. And it’s highly unlikely there would be an echo as the camera and the direction the camera is facing are surrounded by human bodies, which make excellent sound baffles.  The news camera would have been equipped with a high-quality shotgun microphone, which only records sounds directly in front of it or to some degree, behind it. It is highly unlikely that the echo of the shot off of the surrounding buildings would have been able to reach the camera microphone with so many people in the way. So what is that sound? It's certainly follows the crack of the shots at highly regular intervals, but that itself is a clue. I think you’ll be able to figure it out here, where I’ve slowed the sound to 20% of normal. Listen carefully to the first shot. You’ll hear the crack, then that sound that Chris Martenson thought was an echo, then the pop. Now listen to just that sound again. That is the sound of the displacement of air caused by the passage of the bullet. Supersonic bullets generate a crack due to the shock wave created by the bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound, which does not allow the air to get out of the way as it does with a subsonic object. As this shock wave passes an observer on the ground, there's a sudden, rapid change in air pressure, which is heard as the characteristic "crack" sound of a supersonic bullet. But that same bullet also displaces air as it travels, and so, just like a subsonic bullet there is a whoosh sound, also described as a zipping noise as the bullet passes. I’ve prepared an animation to demonstrate this. That whoosh is exactly where we would expect it to be as recorded by the news camera. First, the camera’s microphone will pick up the supersonic crack, then due to the camera’s proximity to the path of the bullets the whoosh of displaced air, and then finally the pop, the sound of the shot being fired. It’s not an echo, and now that we know that we can see why it doesn’t show up on shots six and seven, and it’s not because those shots came from a different gun. Following shot 6 there’s more background noise than with any of the other shots, which could have masked the whoosh, or, as it is now believed that shot 6 is the one that killed Corey Comperatore, it may not be there at all. If the bullet stopped when it hit Comperatore then it never would have passed in front of the camera, and thus no whoosh. If it did continue on, and we have no information on that yet, it certainly would have been moving much slower and likely on a different trajectory, resulting in a quieter whoosh which would easily be masked by the background noise. Martenson seems to feel the whoosh, or what he thought was an echo, is not present on shot 7, but it is, it’s just quieter. The shot passing closer to the crowd behind the podium could do that, as the bodies, which once again are excellent sound baffles, would have absorbed most of the noise. But since we don’t yet know the exact path of each bullet let’s assume there is another explanation. Notice that the background noise increases substantially as shots 4 through 6 are heard. Many professional microphones have automated sound normalization, a process which adjusts sound peaks so as not to overload speakers or the microphone itself. It is entirely possible, even likely, that the mic automatically damped the sound just as the 7^th shot was fired in response to the growing background noise. As the noise reduced, the microphone returned to its default setting, which is why the shot 8 waveform is nearly identical to shot 5. This just leaves the apparent difference in timing of the shots between the two audio files, where the supersonic crack of some of the shots does not line up. From that, Martenson concluded that at least one of the shots came from a window in the very building Crooks was shooting from but if that is the case then the gun used would also have been an AR15 or very similar weapon as the sounds are the same. Note that for the sounds to be the same this theoretical second shooter would have had to lean out the window to take the shot, as shooting from inside, even through an open window would have made the shot sound different as most of it would have been contained inside the building. By the time of that sixth shot, many people would have been looking toward the building as that is where the shots were coming from. It is inconceivable that no one would have seen this second shooter lean out the window. Martenson was a little sloppy in how he lined up the first two shots, which makes precise alignment of the subsequent shots difficult to see, so I took his waveform graphic into Photoshop and fixed it so that shots 4 and 5 now line up perfectly. We can now see that none of the subsequent shots on the cell phone audio line up with the news camera mic, with shots 6 and 7 coming before the supersonic crack recorded by the news microphone and shot 8 coming after. The sound that was identified by Martenson as possible shot 9 is not a shot. Shot 9, the shot fired by the ESU officer came .7 seconds after Crooks’ last shot. And I’m going to prove that in just a few minutes. In the Jeff Ostof video I showed you earlier he demonstrated how moving his head around changed the quality of the sound coming from his microphone. As someone who works with video and audio files almost every day, I can tell you that moving the phone around from which the second audio track came could account for this, and in the video you see that the person holding the phone was moving around a lot, possibly running. In my email last Tuesday to subscribers at my freedom organization, Strong And Free Canada, I suggested this was caused by rapid movement of the cell phone microphone toward or away from the sound, producing timing shifts and that this was plausible due to the fact that the greatest shift was only point .02 of a second, or 2/100ths. However, upon doing the math I discovered the microphone would have to have moved some 20 feet in that time frame to produce the shift we see, which is clearly impossible. However, I have seen this very slight time shift phenomenon in recordings I personally have done, so I dug a little deeper. The answer is something called off axis coloration, and it’s based upon the fact that different parts of the microphone's diaphragm receive sound waves at slightly different times when the source is off-axis, which is to say tilted. You can see an example of this here, where this peak, this peak, this peak and this peak are all the same sound, but they show up on the recording in slightly different places based upon the frequency they are recorded at, a frequency that is affected by the tilt of the microphone, or off-axis coloration. As the person holding the phone was moving around a lot, this would have caused the microphone to tilt, and this could have caused the shifts in timing of the shots. Especially as 2 of the shots show up before the news mic, and 1 shot shows up after, which would be completely consistent with a tilt of the phone over the half second those three shots were fired. Which brings us back to shot nine, and my theory that Thomas Crooks was already dead or dying when he was shot by Secret Service. First shot 9, the real shot 9, not the one identified by Martenson, definitely sounds different than the other shots. In both cases, there is a supersonic crack, but the crack of 9 sounds different which means a different gun. Here’s where I’m going to prove that what Martenson thought was shot 9 was not a shot, and that the real shot 9 came slightly later. Part of the confusion stems from how Martenson labelled the shots, showing shots 1 through 9 in one full sequence from the first to the last shot, but what he labelled here as shot 9 is actually shot 10. Either way that shot was the Secret Service Sniper. There was a shot 9 but once again it’s confused because Martenson then goes on to focus on the second set of shots, labelling them 1 through 6, when in fact these were shots 4 through 9. You will note that on most of my graphics I fixed that to avoid further confusion. The confusion in Martenson’s video really comes to a head at the 23:30 mark where he shows this graphic, where the peak labelled as shot 6 but which would actually have been shot 9 is not a shot, and there are arrows pointing to the actual shot 9. So here’s the proof I promised you. Once again, we go back to Audacity and let’s first go to the news camera. Here is the supersonic crack of shot 4. And here is the pop, the sound of the gun being fired. Here is shot 5. Shot 6, which sounds different because the crack of shot 6 here happens at the same time as the pop of shot 5, and I’ll prove that in a minute. Shot 7. And Shot 8. Here is what Chris identified as shot nine, but as I’m about to prove that is the pop of shot 8. On shot 4 we have a very clear crack and pop. The crack I’ve marked with the red line and the pop with the green line. Note this gap will be very consistent, at .22 seconds due to the shots coming from the same distance from the microphone. On shot 5, we see that the pop overlays the crack of shot 6. This is why it sounds different, not because shot 6 was from a different gun as Chris Martenson concluded. On shot 6 the pop appears not to be there, but remember I already explained that likely the microphone had automatically lowered its gain in response to increased noise so the pop may simply have been lost in the background noise. When gain is lowered, so is the range at which the microphone will pick up sounds. It’s entirely possible, even likely that with the gain lowered the whoosh of that bullet was too far away to register. We see the same thing on shot 7, where the pop is likely either lost in the background, or too far away for the lowered gain of the mic to pick it up. Then finally shot 8, where what Martenson labelled as shot 9 is in fact the pop of shot 8. Here are the sounds again. The crack. And the pop. Crack. Pop. The sound that Martenson thought was shot 9 is clearly the pop of shot 8. So where is shot 9? That is right here, .7 seconds after Crooks’ last shot. Let’s hear it again. Clearly a crack. Then here’s the whoosh. And here’s the pop. And notice that the time between the crack and the pop on this shot is less than on the other shots, which means it’s closer to the news camera. When we look at the same shot on the cell phone audio things get really interesting. In the spot where we see the crack on the news camera audio there is no shot recorded on the cell phone. In fact this entire gap in here is just people screaming. The shot is here. And the pop is here. Which means that this microphone was much closer to the shot, the ninth shot, that was definitely from a different gun, than the news camera was. So let’s do some math, and figure out where the ESU officer who fired that shot was. Fortunately we can measure this audio in hundredths of a second. The gap between the crack and the pop of the news camera is .15 seconds, while the gap of Crooks’s shots is .22 seconds. We know that the expert calculation of that time difference works out to 135 meters, consistent with the distance that Crooks was from the news microphone. A simple ratio calculation shows that .15 seconds equates to a distance of approximately 100 meters. I suspect it’s not as simple as that as what is known as the supersonic carpet of the bullet travelling is likely some kind of exponential or logarithmic ratio to the speed of sound based upon how far away the shot originated from but this simple ratio calculation serves to show that this shot was definitely closer to the camera. The time delay between the crack and the pop on the cell phone is only .05 seconds, with the same ratio calculation showing this microphone was only 30 meters or less from the shot. Note once again these distances are approximate. As already stated I suspect the calculations are more complicated than my simple ratio calculation. What is important is that the cell phone mic is clearly much closer to the shot than the news microphone. So where does that place it? I would say right about here. Now let’s add in known facts. I find it suspicious in itself that information on the shot fired by a Butler police officer is extremely difficult to find. Here is an excerpt, though, from a New York Times article published on July 17, the Wednesday after the shooting. “One of the local police officers deployed at the Trump rally in Butler, Pa., on Saturday shot at the would-be assassin as he was firing toward the former president, Richard Goldinger, the district attorney of Butler County, said in an interview on Wednesday. But the local officer did not fire the kill shot, Mr. Goldinger said, adding that he did not know if the officer had injured the gunman. The Secret Service has said its own snipers killed the gunman. “Our guys did engage him,” Mr. Goldinger said, adding that the gunman had a “reaction” to the local officer’s shot. Mr. Goldinger said he was not sure where the officer shot from; he described the local officer as a “sniper,” though another law enforcement official said it was an officer on the ground. As we’ll see, this is not necessarily a contradiction. The district attorney said that Butler County had assisted the Secret Service that day by providing four sniper teams, four quick-response teams and several officers who were stationed in a barn behind the stage at the rally. No officer deployed by Butler County was inside the building that the gunman had climbed on top of, Mr. Goldinger said.“ So let’s add up some facts. One, we know there was a ninth shot fired by the Butler police and that is supported by the fact that the ninth shot on the audio is clearly a different gun. Two, we know that Butler police snipers were present, and that two of them had left the police staging building minutes before the shooting to look for Crooks. This is why reports of an ESU sniper and an officer on the ground are not necessarily a contradiction. Three, we know that spectators on the ground saw Crooks on the roof and reported him to police. Four, we are told that the officer who fired at Crooks did so from the ground. Five, we know that Crooks quote ‘reacted’ to the shot. And six, we know that immediately after that 9^th shot, the shot from a Butler County ESU officer, a shot that was fired just .7 seconds after Crooks’ 8^th shot, Crooks stopped shooting even though he had at least two rounds left. And if you’re wondering if an officer on the ground there would have had a shot line to Crooks, the answer is in this video, from a local area pastor, Matthew, who went to the site after the shooting to check it out himself. Here’s what he found. So we know that an officer on the ground there would have had a shot line to Crooks and we know that Crooks fired no more shots after being shot at by the Butler County officer. The official statement is that the Secret Service sniper killed Crooks, and that would be technically correct even if he was already dying or disabled by the Butler County officer’s shot. Is that why he stopped firing? The timing certainly makes sense, with the police shot fired just as Crooks may have been lining up another shot. And if that’s not the reason, if Crooks was still alive and mobile, why would he stay on the roof for a full 10 seconds after he fired his last shot when he had to know the Secret Service snipers would be drawing a bead on him at any moment. If he had the presence of mind, the smart move would have been to slide backward down the roof, behind the peak, but he was shot in forehead, which we are told was just sticking up above the top ridge of the roof, allowing the Secret Service sniper to make that quote ‘one in a million’ shot. Except it wouldn’t have been one in a million if Crooks wasn’t even moving, because he was already dead or dying. An easy shot for an expert sniper at that range. Many questions are being asked about why police, who were stationed in the building behind from which Crooks fired, didn’t see him. This is complicated by conflicting reports of how long Crooks was on the roof before he opened fire, with, as I already mentioned, some reports saying he was there for as long as 20 minutes. While we still don’t have an exact time from the first moment Crooks was spotted on the roof until the first shots were fired, at this point the best information we have suggests that Crooks was on the roof for between two and three minutes before firing. So why didn’t the officers in the building see him? Jeff Ostrof suggested that their view was blocked by this AC duct, but that turns out not to be true, as you can see from this video. What we do know is that at the time of the shooting police snipers positioned in the building were on the ground looking for Crooks, however the police say that at no time was the building unmanned, and this is key. If there were only one or two officers left in the building in the minutes before the shooting it’s reasonable to assume that none of them leaned out the window to look. And of course the question that everyone wants an answer to, why did the Secret Service take almost 16 seconds to shoot Crooks after he opened fire. There are really only two logical possibilities. Either there was a conspiracy and they were ordered to stand down and let Crooks take his shots, or it was the result of a series of incompetent moves by the Secret Service. Why was there no sniper on the water tower, an obvious place for a sniper to have a full view of the surrounding countryside? Why was there no one stationed on the roof that Crooks fired from, when it was an equally obvious spot for an assassin to shoot from? Why were the two Secret Service snipers positioned on top of the barns behind Trump, when there were many positions around that field they could not cover from there? Personally I think it was optics, someone was far more concerned with being seen to do their job than with actually doing it. But the placement of the snipers does not mean the snipers themselves were incompetent. I mentioned very early in this report that correct placement of where Crooks was on the roof was vitally important, and here is why. As you can see here, the view of the left hand sniper team was blocked by the tree and it is therefore believed that this was not the sniper who shot Crooks, but rather it was the sniper stationed on the right hand roof, who would have been able to see him. While this sniper had his gun pointed to the east some reports say he swivelled it around to the west just before the shooting started. Even if that is true, he may not have been able to get Crooks in his sights until his spotter, armed with binoculars was able to relay Crooks’ position. And that would have been complicated if Crooks was lying motionless, just the top of his head showing above the crest of the roof, his face possibly pressed against it if his body had gone limp after being shot by an ESU officer. In the helmet cam video we have of officers on the roof shortly after the shooting, most of Crooks body is blurred out. If there was a second bullet wound, we wouldn’t be able to see it. And if Crooks was killed by a Butler County cop rather than the Secret Service, why would they hide that? The obvious answer, the Secret Service had already bungled the job so badly the last thing they need is to be shown up by a local cop who took Crooks out within 6 seconds of him opening fire. If true, that information is obviously being suppressed. All of this is just a theory, but it’s a theory that makes sense of a lot of things that otherwise don’t.