Fun geometry facts:
2 located, timestamped recordings can get you rough direction
3 can triangulate
4 can triangulate including elevation
5+ starts to relax the location and timestamping requirements
Locations can be backed out based on delays from located noise events.
The report is a single event for triangulation.
The crack should come from the point where the relative velocity of the bullet in the direction drops below the speed of sound, a different spot for each observer. That is, where v_bullet * cos(theta) = v_sound.
Because of this, the trajectory of the bullet can be triangulated too.
My jaw dropped when I saw the site map, you couldn’t get more buildings in range. That was ridiculous. With that in mind, look in the other direction to those buildings and see if they are of similar range. It would work with the trajectory of nicking Uncle Don’s ear.
If you don’t have survey equipment, you can take a 4 or 6 ft level and get pretty close by sighting down it at visual targets. You will need to be able to place the level and balance it on an object between the two points of interest.
TLDR: A second shooter is not necessary to explain the data shown in this video. The syncing of the bullet’s crack (crack) to the muzzle’s boom (boom) is based upon a faulty assumption. Please read fully for further details. Apologies in advance for any typos.
The Problem
Shots 1-5 and 7 are in sync between audio 1 and audio 2 but shots 6 and 8 are out of sync. However, this does not prove that there was a 2nd or even 3rd shooter. In fact, it is to be expected based on the official narrative.
First let’s assume the shooter was about 400ft away from audio 1 and 200ft from audio 2. Let’s also assume the bullet is traveling around 2x the speed of sound and that the speed of sound is 1,000fps. These numbers are by no means exact but they show that it is possible to have seemingly out of sync shots from the same shooter. For shots 1-3 the crack is heard first followed by the boom. This is because the bullet travels the total 400ft in the time the boom travels 200ft. This is to be expected with supersonic rounds and was explained in the video. However, Chris speculated that there was a second shooter approximately 100 feet further away from this position but this cannot be the case.
For shots 5-8 it was difficult to tell the crack from the boom because the rate of fire closely matched the time delay between the crack and the boom. That is why it was necessary to compare audio 1 to audio 2 but when the two audio sources were matched the crack was matched to the boom. This becomes problematic if a bullet does not pass directly by audio 1 and we know for certain a few did not. If a bullet had, let say, struck a firefighter who was approximately 100ft away from audio 1 and 300ft away from the shooter then it would take 1.25 times longer for the crack to reach audio 1 but it would take the same amount of time for the boom to reach audio 2. This is because the bullet is traveling at 2,000fps for the first 300 ft, reaching the firefighter in 0.15s and the sound of the boom traveled the final 100ft at 1,000fps, taking 0.1s. This brings the total time from gunshot to when audio 1 picks up the crack to 0.25s instead of the 400ft/2,000fps=0.2s of the bullets that flew past the microphone. At the same time, the boom reaches audio 2 in 200ft/1,000fps=0.2s. This time does not change because the distance between the audio 2 and the shooter remained the same. In this scenario any crack heard from a bullet that struck the crowd between the shooter and Trump would be 0.25s-0.2s=0.05s delayed when synchronized with the boom heard from audio 2. Remember that Chris calculated the delay to be 0.03s, so 0.05s is well within range of what we see.
Furthermore, we know that 2 people were shot on the stands between Trump and the shooter so we should expect to find at least two shots that are out of sync between audio 1 and audio 2 and this is exactly what we see. Shots 6 and 8 do not align properly and these are likely the shots that struck a supporter and killed the firefighter. This coincides with the testimony from the family that the firefighter jumped on them to shield them from the volley of bullets suggesting he was sadly killed by one of the last few bullets.
Addressing other issues brought up in the video:
The sound change between the first few shots and the last few shots in audio 2 could have been caused by the man recording the video shifting his hands and covering up his phone’s microphone.
The shots hitting above the elevation of Trump (such as the railing and the man grasping his side) could have been caused by the gun getting away from the shooter as he was unable to control the recoil. It was hard to tell when the railing/man was struck but my guess is it was when the shooter began firing rapidly. Even an experienced shooter would find it difficult to get back on target firing as quickly as he was, much less a novice. It is also possible that the shooter (upset by not killing Trump) decided the next best thing was taking out his supporters.
Closing Thoughts
Though this does not entirely rule out foul play, it is clear that there was not a sniper located behind the known shooter. Being that the evidence presented in this video is not the smoking gun (so to speak) to the lone gunman narrative it was made out to be, I think it appropriate to release a video correcting this video and detailing what I discussed in this comment. The truth is an honorable pursuit and this was an easy mistake to make, but big claims need even bigger evidence.
The expert I was speaking with yesterday said many things that had the ring of truth.
1 - He’d never have put the two sniper teams so close to the asset being protected (they operate best when they have a wider field of the situation).
2 - he’d never have put them essentially right on top of each other (SS team 1 and 2 were on the same building complex, about 40 yards apart), dramatically limiting their effectiveness due to overlapping most of their duty range.
3 - He’d have never allowed that location at all in the first place. Too many unprotectable lines of sight.
4 - There’s no way that roof was unsecured. None. Every situation he’d managed the ring of protection was 400 to 500 yards. LEO could manage beyond that.
5 - he wasn’t that interested in the water tower…would definitely have cleared and secured it with a stationed team to assure nobody else went up there, but wasn’t sure it would have offered good enough views due to all the trees between it and the grounds. Would have scoped it out, and it might have worked, but it wasn’t really all that attractive.
6 - Drones. Where the F were the drones? This is not negotiable or excusable in this day and age.
1st, how does anybody find anything at TMZ? What an ADHD layout they have…but after scrolling back 3 pages I found it.
So, confirmed, ‘railing guy’ was shot with the first shot.
I believe there’s a problematic trajectory for a roof shooter, but we’ll need to have a better reconstruction of the precise elevations to be sure.
But, if my rough and dirty estimations are correct, and assuming Trump’s ear-nip wasn’t capable of deflecting a round by several degrees upwards, I think we have to begin looking more seriously at the windows down below.
And I’m still curious about the amount of vaporization of that round after passing through the ‘railing guy’s’ torso…
Ah. I’m going to immediately correct myself. I just assumed that flag shirt railing guy was hit by that first round.
Now I am not sure, but if he wasn’t, this raises even more troubling implications.
Follow along…
1 - if he wasn’t hit by that first round, which sailed past Trump’s ear, giving it a nick, and then vaporized on the railing, this makes sense. Okay.
2 - but then that means the second shot was literally within the same ~1-2 foot box. From a shooting perspective, this is good shooting at 140 yards with iron sights.
3 - that would then mean that the target was essentially the same as the first shot which was Trump’s head. So we had a second miracle that day…
If I mapped out two shots hitting the same spot on that back upper right bleacher corner, they would appear as a single line as they would overlap at the 1 pixel limit of my line tool.
This is consistent with a professional shooter. However, I cannot explain why they would have missed the 2nd and 3rd shots also as Trump was just standing there with his hand going up to check on his ear during those two shots.
Intentional? The scope got bumped between the zeroing at the range and the day of? A patriot inside turned the scope two clicks to the left while nobody was looking? God intervened?
Hi Chris. This is great investigative stuff, but by limiting yourself to an amplitude analysis you might be missing the meat here.
Every sound has a distinctive acoustic profile. To match up sounds that come from the same source you will need a spectrographic analysis, such as an acoustic waterfall profilr or a 3D surface spectrogram. These will match up the different timbre of each shot, and perhaps give you the answer.
There are some great free apps online that will do this. I use them all the time. It doesn’t take a lot of previous experience to use these tools. I would love to see what you come up with.
My best hypothesis is that there was another shooter below Crooks in the building.
Also, remember that I am merely building upon the analysis of audio experts who already determined weapon A and weapon B were different.
I appreciate the challenges though, this is how we tighten things up and determine the truth! Keep at it and find more holes and better or alternative explanations.
Love taking the hat off. Mic orientation could be a factor on recording 2. We definitely need more recordings!
My explanation for this is that recording 1 is all down range and 140 yards from the shooter/s
A sound coming from a gun shooting out an open window, or from two different areas on two nearby roofs would be nearly identical from the perspective of recording 1.
You entirely missed the logic. For any of those bullets to have been picked up in recording 1 they had to have created a sonic snap within the vicinity of the mic in Video/recording 1.
Ergo, they were shot toward the stage and stands.
At the rapid fire rate of ~0.25 seconds per shot, there’s no way the shooter could have had any other intent other than “hit people over there.”
Yes, i don’t think Bongino is dirty, he is reporting intel from his buddies in usss. He was an an agent years ago. I think he didn’t like the local leos saying usss made mistakes. Still proud of his team. He did say that the texts would reveal truth. The local leos said they were on traffic duty only. Not in charge of the glass company roof.
I think local leos aren’t going to accept any blame for this
“The problem is within our own Party. It’s Larry Fink and Reid Hoffman. They’re not going to let Trump back…”
“They (RNC top donors) are not going to let him (Trump) near the whitehouse.” Come hell or high water they are not going to let Trump into the presidency, they want the war machine and they want censorship.
This idea is only possible if you don’t watch the video Chris shared of the vendor who went to hundreds of his rallies to sell merchandise. She pointed out how weird and incomplete the security profile was.
If they commonly dropped the ball and this was no exception, then the idea that incompetence was not just this time only, but persistent until disaster isn’t so strange.
However, that possibility appears dispelled if you believe people like the vendor who said it was previously done properly and this time it was done poorly.
