This guy has nowhere near the understanding of the evidence involved with the event that’s needed to accurately analyze it. Having experience in Secret Service protection details does not an investigation make.
2 Likes
Yep.
For me, anybody who 2 month later is still coming up with a graphic that shows Crooks on the west side of AGR6 has lost all the credibility right away.
6 Likes
Right? Unbelievable! He’s proof of the lack of competency in the SS, if anything.
For me the question is now, who has contacted him.
What is the credential/possibility that Crooks made the first contact with LEOs, maybe paid them for information? Seems almost impossible. Way more probable the service had contacted him.
Mistake? Negligence? Intentional deception?
What might be behind? Does he worry about someone might find a 2nd shooter from 2nd level open window?
2 Likes
Originally attempted to post this on Aug 10th.:
Unasked/unanswered questions:
- Does the SS ever utilize counter-sniper/gunshot detection-location systems?
- Did the SS have a counter-sniper/gunshot detection-location system at Butler?
- Was it used?
- What specific system was used?
- If one was used, what was the exact position of the system/sensor(s) and what was the results provided?
- E.g., provide the system/sensors location(s) and provide all lines of bearing and position locations it determined for each of the 10 gunshots.
- Did the SS have a counter-sniper/gunshot detection-location system at Butler?
- Regardless of whether the SS utilized an automated gunshot detection/location system, the cell phones of attendees who were recording at the time of the shooting can be used to perform a similar function.
- As long as you have three or more cell phones which captured the audio of the shooting (more are better; and the more widely dispersed physically, the better).
- Starting with:
- the known precise position of each sensor (cell phone) [which should be in the metadata of each video file] and
- the precise time of arrival of each gunshot at that sensor (which you have already shown can be determined as in your posted video analyses),
- a hyperbolic fix of the shooter location can be determined for each individual gunshot.
- These can be used to confirm whether all 8 of the perpetrator gunshots came from a single location, or from two (or more) locations , AND where those positions were located. Additionally it can confirm the location of each of the two LE response shots.
- Starting with:
- As long as you have three or more cell phones which captured the audio of the shooting (more are better; and the more widely dispersed physically, the better).
- The shooter’s white van with the explosives:
- Was this van parked along any of the preplaned and/or actual routes of the Trump motorcade to/from the event.
- If the answer is yes it would point to government security agency provision of a priori information to the shooter.
- Where are photographs of the van, its location and the van’s contents including the explosive devices and electronics. Including the devices, the receivers, detonators and the drone and its controller.
- Was this van parked along any of the preplaned and/or actual routes of the Trump motorcade to/from the event.
1 Like
The best answer I know of to this part of your question is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2e8cKXpMWw
2 Likes
They kept in secret if they had used. 
Rational consideration:
if they didn’t want let any information leaked, better not to use it at all.
We need nore from you than silly YouTube links. Get it in gear
That “silly YouTube” link represents countless hours of work by @greg_n that was shared in this forum as he went through the process. He welcomed others to comment on his work as he went about it, and had many others who were performing acoustic analysis give him feedback. So, you could say it was a collaborative effort. I followed Greg’s project closely, and greatly appreciate the hard work Greg put into it, the process he used, and the excellent video report of his work and findings.
To diminish Greg’s work with an uninformed and child-like comment is telling. If you disagree with his findings, I challenge you to produce your own work to challenge them. Greg openly and willingly subjected himself and his work to many challenges along the way, for which he has earned the respect of many of us long time contributors to this forum. For that reason, I would have responded exactly like @brian60221.
Your comment sounds like you view this forum as just another social media site where you can rant and rave without offering any contribution to the investigative and analytical efforts the forum was intended to foster and support. If that’s how you view it, I doubt you’ll get much out of it.
It seems to me we have another “inductee,” @brian60221. 
5 Likes
Thanks, @vegaspatriot . I appreciate what you said there. I didn’t keep track of my hours, but I ended up putting way more time into this project than I expected to. Probably about 80 hours, but likely more. I learned a lot along the way, so I’m glad I did it. I received a lot of good critical and constructive feedback from people on this forum, and that helped a lot.
5 Likes
You’re welcome, and I meant every word of it. It needed to be said.
I couldn’t tell you how many hours I have into this, but I’m semi-retired and due to personal circumstances am pretty much a homebody, not by choice, so have plenty of time on my hands. I have been working on it 7 days per week, often 10 or more hours a day, by choice, ever since the RNC was over.
5 Likes
Could you please take a brief look at the following scenario and make a short comment on it.
Based on the audio analysis, are there any reasons to reject it as not possible?
I’m not trying to be rude here - just blunt and succinct. I think the proposed scenario is preposterous and not worthy of being taken seriously.
3 Likes
And why exactly?
Wouldn’t the timing be precise enough?
Would the required volume reduction not be possible with a very large stationary suppressor?
Would projectiles flying only 80 meters not be possible?
Or could something else not work?
I think all that’s missing is an intervention from extraterrestrials to give credibility to your scenario!
Then you can’t give a reason?
I’ll offer my thoughts on your scenario, Daniel. In doing so, I’m in no way diminishing your credibility or intellect. I’ve seen you come up with some valuable information, and I appreciate you trying to identify or rule out every possibility of a second shooter. I got into this investigation myself thinking there was a second shooter based on the difference in sound between the first 3 shots and the following 5 shots. I just haven’t seen any credible evidence of a second shooter to date, and @greg_n’s work is pretty solid in demonstrating that there wasn’t one. I understand why you think your scenario and Greg’s results can both be true, but here are my thoughts.
The principle of Occam’s Razor comes to mind, which has served me well throughout the countless investigation’s I’ve performed during my professional career. It states that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. When you start having to come up with multiple details to support an alternative scenario, it’s like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. As hard as you try, the round peg is the most likely to fit.
Those are my thoughts, and you can take them or leave them. Think for yourself, I like to say, but also think critically.
I think Greg is justified in not considering your alternative scenario, based on what I know of his analysis and results. The burden of proof should be on you to produce the evidence to support your scenario, or at least enough to convince Greg that it’s worth considering in his analysis. What evidence do you have? It’s a fair question, one I spend countless hours answering for myself in my own work.
1 Like
Yes, @vegaspatriot. That is well said, and a very kindly-worded response to the original question. Thank you.
1 Like
No need to be rude.
Many people want to know if there was another shooter.
I have no evidence. But I think it would have been very risky, if it gets uncovered. So I think if there was a conspiracy, they did not take the risk to plant a professional shooter. It is just a gut guess Bayesian inference. (But who knows?)