.223 or 5.56 are incredibly unstable bullets. Its one of the reasons that makes a decent bullet in home defense. Hits first sheet of drywall and starts tumbling, 2nd sheet bleeds off so much energy, by the time it hits the third piece of sheet rock, if it penetrates, it’s done and won’t through the 4th sheet.
1 Like
3 Likes
I know nothing about the wounding potential of a 1:14 vs 1:12 or 1:7. I only know that the twist rate was increased after testing in cold arctic conditions. The air density was too high for the bullets to be stable and they saw a lot of “key holing” when using the slower twist rate rifle in cold/dense air.
I honestly do not know if twist makes a difference in wounding potential because the act of the yaw and tumble is what is important. The faster twist rifle is required in cold dense air for the bullet to be stable during the flight to the target.
1 Like
On the day of the shooting isn’t there a picture of Crooks wearing shorts and then another of him on the roof with pants??? Maybe that’s actually somebody else on the roof and not Crooks???
2 Likes
I currently disagree with the idea that there were two shooters.
There’s a wide angle video here that shows the 4th and 5th shots following the same basic trajectory as the first 3 shots - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5NBC4ijymw&list=LL&index=23 -
A user on X called Oliver Alexander has a more detailed analysis - x.com
The 4th hits James Copenhaver (top row, right bleachers, white shirt, camo sun hat, black trousers)
The 5th hits Corey Comperatore (Middle of left side of left bleachers. You can see his cap fly off)
Also the line of fire I think is consistent with the shooter being on the roof where Crooks was. When looking at the profile of the site on Google street view, you can roughly see that the ground is not straight. It rises up from the shooters building, then down a little after the north sniper barn.
1 Like
Also the location where Corey Comperatore was standing aligns with the top row of the right bleacher where David Dutch and James Copenhaver were standing, with Trump’s head right in between.
This is rough judgement, and more exact measurements might reveal more, but I currently believe the first 8 shots were all from the shooter on the roof.
Excellent work, Chris. I really appreciate you showing your raw data and inviting analysis and commentary from others.
I STRONGLY urge you to get in touch with a local reporter named JP Vranesevich and share notes in some brainstorming. He is also commonly known locally as “John Paul” because of his unusual last name. He apparently personally knows the local law enforcement people who were in the building below Crooke.
Here is his personally-run alt-news website, you can try to contact him there:
2 Likes
In the video below, Richard Goldinger, the district attorney for Butler County, said that one of the emergency services unit team members fired at Crooks, but missed, then a secret service sniper fired and killed Crooks. My current presumption is that the 9th shot heard, the one that comes immediately after the 8th and sounds different, is likely the emergency services shot. Then then 10th shot that comes 15 seconds after the 1st, is likely the SS sniper shot.
Watching LT’s video - 7.19.24: The SUM of ALL Fears, RNC Gold, Pres. Trump delivers amazing message, Final ACT, Pray!
Go to the 14:10 mark to Trump’s speech on Thursday night and listen carefully. He said the shooter was taken out by a usss sniper from a much greater distance with one bullet. We’ve been told the only snipers posted were on the two buildings to Trump’s right. We know the “shooter” didn’t move since he was killed in the same spot he was seen by the public. So, how could the distance the sniper shot from be further away than the distance to Crooks?
Yep…along with any high velocity low grain bullet
If Trump was shot with a wobbling bullet isn’t it possible that the wobble would not allow a clean groove? It might have caused more damage. If it was caused by a higher caliber could that explain the smooth groove?
I am not a gun girl so dismiss this if I’m out to lunch.
This is a good question! Did we actually recover the bullet that hit Trump’s ear? If it was a 55 grain 0.224" bullet, it might have tumbled and keyholed through the next object that it hit. I would love to examine the hydraulic hose that got hit during the event.
I am not sure if we could determine what Trump was hit with by looking at his injured ear. Assuming he was hit with a 55 grain 0.224" bullet, I think it would likely yaw and tumble in the air after hitting Trump’s ear. I am guessing here. I think this would be a cool thing to test with a high-speed camera.
There are plenty of videos on youtube of blocks of ballistics gel being shot with various cartridges. When testing M193 ammo, the bullet has to travel a bit in the block before it tumbles.
Fow what it is worth, I love these challenging questions because it helps smacks our brains into thinking about all possibilities rather than a small subset of answers that are the result of our unconscious bias.
FWIW, I found this photo on Reddit, which appears to have been taken not long after the assassination attempt. In the distance I can see what appears to be two figures standing on the roof where Crooks’ body would be. Is that a sniper rifle in the foreground? Is this a trophy photo taken by the sniper? I don’t know, but I am including a couple of screenshots from Google Earth showing my best guess as to where this purported sniper’s position would be and the distance to Crooks and Trump. I’m not suggesting that the sniper was shooting at Trump. I’m including the distance to aid in the audio analysis to see if it’s possible that one or more of the shots may have originated from this location.
how would you explain the time differences that Chris (and others) are currently analyzing.
4 Likes
Testing The Assassination Attempt of Donald Trump (youtube.com)
I have been wondering when this video would come out. I have been expecting it since last weekend. Brandon Herrera has many other interesting videos that replicate historical shooting events.
2 Likes
This Oliver Alexander chap on X seems to dismiss your hypothesis on the basis of you having a PhD in neurotoxicology. Although he refrains from telling us what his degree is in. Or, in fact, anything at all about his background although a google search finds him popping up all over the place in various MSM publications. Anyway, he dismisses your theory in part because he states that the camera was moving. How does that work? Is he trying to reference the Doppler shift? This requires relative movement between the observer and the source of the sound. And yet the position of the person holding the phone on the second video doesn’t really change. Yes, he or she rotates and shakes, but their position relative to the ground doesn’t really change. I think for the Doppler shift to work here the observer has to be moving with a definite direction and velocity relative to the sound source. That doesn’t occur here. But maybe his degree is in Physics? Unfortunately he doesn’t tell us what his expertise is.
2 Likes
It has been my experience that people who start a debate with a question of authority are rarely worth listening to.
Facts and reasoning sound the same to me no matter whose lips say them.
3 Likes
Why are they using an 8th grade picture in the media? What about a more current driver license pic?? ID from work?
Gotta be a reason.
6 Likes
What about the open windows and doors above the ground?
2 Likes