BTW Rifle is .223 as per FBI
1 Like
I sent an inquiry about the chain of custody of the videos (how exactly they got from the PD’s systems to Dropbox) and will let everyone know if I hear back.
1 Like
.223/5.56mm the difference is no big deal. Even a AR marked .223 Rem, might have a 5.56mm spec chamber.
I’ve got a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in math. They are old degrees, and I am getting old. I’ve forgotten 80% of the math I’ve learned, and probably dropped 30 IQ points from when I was 20. When you say “Newton’s method” I think “hmm, I studied that once…”
I was able to reproduce the final equation greg_n had in his video by treating it as a basic calculus problem: take the derivative of the time needed for the sound to reach the microphone with respect to D1, find D1 where that derivative is zero, and plug into the time. I’m rusty enough that took an embarrassing amount of time.
I think I can figure out equation 1. Is “a” a deceleration force? t1 doesn’t seem to be defined or marked in the illustration. I’m guessing D1 is the distance between point M and point 1 and t1 is the time the bullet takes to travel between those points.
I honestly can’t figure out eq.2
It would be really helpful if you could give an example using fairly realistic numbers in those equations.
2 Likes
I read somewhere that if it were barreled for one of the cartridges both could be used, but not if it was barreled for the other. I don’t recall the more limiting barrel design. To be clear, I don’t believe it prohibited from firing the other cartridge, it just introduced some risk you wouldn’t want to take using it.
Hi offtheback,
17 days ago, I think it is just about the day all these body cam videos came out, I got into an argument with intolerance. I was claiming not to hear echoes with the first 3 shots and shots 4 – 8 with echoes. This is what Chris was arguing from the beginning and what convinced me to start joining this forum.
Then intolerance pointed out to me that on newest video all 8 shots had echoes. First, I did not hear any echoes on shots 1 -3, simply by listening to Audio and I claimed he had found a new source from the side of the building. Maybe I desperately wanted to believe and confirm that shots 1 - 3 had no echoes (similar to what you told Greg)
But he insisted that all 8 had echoes. I got the feeling he knew much more than me on this topic, but why, the video just came out?
Not being a audio specialist like you, I did however simply extract the audio and had a visual inspection of each shot and the first thing that came to my mind was the same you also are claiming, namely these 8 shots are modified, just like the vents in front of the wall of building 6 are covered up with paint. I had to stop this conversation, and I hoped for somebody like you to professionally debunk this audio. But finally, I would like to know, do you hear any echoes in this recording at all?
1 Like
People fire 5.56mm ammo in .223 Remington marked rifles all the time. It is possible it might cause higher chamber pressures. I would be more concerned if it was a bolt action rifle vs a AR type rifle.
1 Like
.223 caliber is a lower pressure caliber of near identical dimensions as 5.56x45mm.
5.56x45mm is a NATO chambering of higher pressure than .223.
Some older rifles were chambered only in .223 cal and caution against using higher pressure 5.56mm. In this respect, there is a 1-way compatibility, a 5.56mm rifle can fire both whereas it may be unsafe to fire 5.56mm in a rifle chambered for .223 cal. I bet many people ignore the caution without problems but it is unwise as the higher pressure 5.56 NATO might rupture the chamber and grenade the rifle.
2 Likes
Some people used to warn about firing 5.56mm in a Ruger Mini-14 marked .223 Rem. But later Ruger came out and said it is safe to fire 5.56mm in their rifles.
2 Likes
I want to make sure we’re on the same page. Is this what you’re referencing? I can try to get a better shot of it.
Hi Roger,
All 8 shots are for all intents and purposes identical in the cruiser audio. The echo starts about .1 seconds after the shot and peaks about .15 seconds after the shot. The echoes are weird, though, as they have a lot of higher frequency content that isn’t in the initial report. Here I show the frequency spectrum of the initial report and the echo for one shot.
The echo has a higher-pitched peak frequency than the original shot. The long fat tail on the echo spectrum means that if this is real, the cruiser glass isn’t muffling the shots too much. But the report itself has almost no energy above 2000 Hz while the echo does.
The only physical world explanation that even starts to address this is that the echo is of the bullet sonic signature that bounced off something in front of the shot–I don’t know what that would be, DJ Stewart (joking)? Even he was too far away for that.
But what really happened is the report inexplicably has no high-frequency content. It doesn’t match the echo or the noise spectrum of the rest of the audio.
So yes, there is an echo. Does it actually go with the report it follows or not? Seems like another potential contradiction with this source.
2 Likes
Hi Offtheback,
Just for your information, I made a frame compare between the video I downloaded from the TMZ homepage on Friday, August 23 and the one that is still online at scoopernews. They are a perfect match (with one frame offset) Here is the link to this video:
So, you can kind of travel back in time and download this video, which was still online on the TMZ homepage just last Friday.
Here are the screenshots from the Scoopernews version:
For all of those who do not know what we are doing here, we think that we have eligibly found evidence that TMZ has been editing the famous “Crooks on the roof video”, adding dynamics and enhancing shell casings.
If you don’t believe us, then go to the above webpage, download the “older version” of the TMZ video extract each frame of the first part of the video (not the whole video, because that will explode your harddrive with data 
) with a tool such as VLC media, then do the same with the video which is now officially on the TMZ homepage and when comparing with difchecker (free online tool) you will notice that eligibly small changes to crooks body has been applied to simulate the riffle recoil and to emphasize the casing…
1 Like
Yes, of course, I’ve already edited those posts to better explain myself and also that file. After your explanation that the AGRdifference values were already accounted for in the ground elevations I can understand how we had a failure to communicate. Also, please note that that file doesn’t mention AGRdifference, they are just lines I use for adding or subtracting values to the ongoing model without changing the original ones. On that particular file I typed the same AGRdifference values you use and noticed that the Crooks trajectory then happens to work, but I understand that those values, as you explained, are already accounted for in your ground elevations. I use those lines called extra to test out many values and many scenarios. I was simply interested in talking about it that particular scenario with you.
1 Like
I see this has allready been reported, but these are the last seconds of Crooks just befor he is taken out by the sniper with the 10th shot.
2 Likes
Hi @roger-knight
I can see you’re upset, it wasn’t my intention. That spreadsheet was made to test out scenarios, and your latest data passed with flying colors against ballistic drop for the 55grains 5.56 ammo that I use, btw. (HowDoIKnow’s scenario flopped on that Aug15th try). About the spreasheet, I use the “extra” lines on the spreadsheet to add or subtract many values while I check theories against ballistic data, without having to delete the values that are being agreed upon by the community. As you have explained, the ground elevations you use on your drawings, ALREADY have those “AGRdifference” heights for trump and rail in them, so what you see there on that previous post 1123 is that I tested out a scenario where I add them again, for a second time, (as you have observed and pointed out), and I found it curious that when I did so, the Crooks trajectory worked. Both theories work with that particular alteration to the testing spreadsheet (p. It doesn’t mean one or the other is already wrong, we would just need to confirm those elevations. Your elevations being correct, I will agree with you on the vent theory. Should elevations be flatter, then Crooks seems more likely to me. After elevations then we could test windage, but I believe elevations need to work out first, otherwise it could be pointless to do more complicated work before the simpler work fits.
How about this, I’ll upload a new one right below that I made with better wording, what do you think? This one also has some change tracking of your drawings to the right of the ballistic data. Maybe I could ask some questions about those AGRdifferences and also about the recent changes since Aug15th?
a) how did you get to those AGRdifferences for Trump and Rail? (Ref 402 and Ref 690). I know they’re offsets from considering AGR6 on ground level 0, and what their purpose is (to backtrace), but how did you get to those numbers 2,185 and 1,17 mathematically? As you mentioned you used data provided by a company for the elevation of AGR6, but why did you have to come up with an offset if the company had topographical data of the area?
b) I noticed you changed the position of the vent 0,14 feet up since August 15th. What did I miss? I also noticed some increases on some items (see columns AC to AE on the spreadsheet below, please).
Oh, and for @sonjax6 and @kincses-zsolt, our math wizards, if you guys could, when you have a little time, could you check the approach for rotating the trajectory of the bullet on columns X and AA, please ? (angle and radians above the header). No need to summon R. Feynman for ultra high-end precision work, just a reasonable-sanity-check… 
2 Likes
I have not gotten deep into the car audio yet. Got some troubling red flags so far.
When analyzing shot #1 from the TMZ video, what I am hearing is a solid thump on first report. This is followed by what sounds like the roof of building 6 rattling as it deals with the thump of the shock wave.
With the ‘echo’ in the car audio, it too might be the roof rattle. It could even be some car rattle from the shock wave. Generally, sound travels faster through more dense objects as the atoms don’t have to bounce around as much to transfer the signal. The glass and sheet metal is fairly thin so don’t expect much change in the timing. Insulation is used on the car floor and roof that will deaden some of the sound.
Thanks for pointing out these problems. Will try and follow up soon.
Hi Sonja,
I will integrate this small Excel table showing the absolute heights in my next drawing version 6.
1 Like
OK, switching gears…
I started to analyse Jon Malis video, and I was happy to have a good HD version, of which I could find in this Forum. I told to myself, finally a cristal clear movie without any grey or black paint covering up the most interesting parts of the video. So, when Jon goes back behind the tree, you can see the guy in the red cap (who is that guy?) that gets the full 8 shots on camera,
but you can also see Mike DiFrischia (Ross) for quite a long time. Jon was filming behind his back, and I was curious if maybe we can see the screen of Mike and what he is filming just to double check if it is in accordance with the movie, we see on the TMZ homepage.
Ahhhhhh my black paint nightmare is back! Nohhh… 
Ok, I took a deep breath and continued to watch frame by frame, hoping to maybe find one screen shot which appears not to have black paint over it. Maybe we are lucky:
Even though it seems that some black paint has been put on his head, we can clearly see the red T-shirt in this frame and some following frames as well. Therefore, this is not a reflection of somebody in the back of the camera, it is the actual frame of the video.
OK, so far nothing special, because I remember seeing the same guy in the red T-shirt in the TMZ movie. So, I time stamped both videos, putting the first shot at zero. We should see the same frame at the same time in both videos.
Let’s investigate!
So, I look at the time stamp where we can clearly see the red T-shirt guy in Mike’s screen, and it turns out to be at 20.63 seconds after the first shot.
Then I started to watch the TMZ video and first I thought we got a match:
But wait… the time stamp is at 12:66 seconds and the guy with the red T-shirt’s face is turned twards the camera. Nope that’s not the frame we are looking for… (By the way, why is this guy in the red T-shirt standing around when shots are fired? He does not seem to be too concerned 
)
I get to frame 20:66 seconds and what is this???
No guy with the red T-shirt. I continue to watch all the way to the end and he never appears again in this video…
have a look for yourself:
1 Like
Hi daniloraf,
No, not at all, simply sometimes people put out baseless claims and we take the time to debunk it and instead of giving feedback to the answer, you see the same baseless claim in another post from the same guy 3 days later. This to me is more of a distraction from getting to the truth. I really appreciate your answer, and I can see you are not one of those guys that is trying to create confusion in this forum, you seem to be an honest guy.
a) The floor level height is the most challenged topic in this drawing and I can only recommend for those who don’t understand the way we got the accurate floor levels is to follow the suggested crash course in this topic. Land ID has provided us with high accuracy topographical floor levels. With this, you are able to measure anywhere you want within the entire butler boundary. So all you need to do is to measure the slop from the AGR building to the position where Trump was standing. It will give you very accurate information about the heights of this terrain. In addition, as I mentioned before, in Gary’s video he reconfirmed our heights of which he used a high accuracy drone. So using two completely different methods and getting the same results confirms that we are very close to reality.
b) The way I proceed is I wait until I get a considerable amount of small changes in the data. These are people from this forum who give their feedback and challenge the data. When the claim seems to be legit, I integrate it into the next version, kind of like an update. Now we are at version 5. So probably you are looking at version 4 or lower and seeing some differences. I always mention the data points that have been changed when I come out with a new update.
So feel free to ask for any data that you are not able to understand by indicationg the ref. point.
1 Like