Audio Analysis Is Most Consistent Two Shooters At Trump Rally

[sonjax6]

@kincses-zsolt

Assume there was a 2nd shooter and didn’t want suicidal mission. Acceptable for us. But the supposed handlers might think differently. The 2nd shooter didn’t do well the job. I’m sure I don’t want to wear those shues. In other words, due to the failed mission, it would be not suicidal but homicidal at the end.

Note: carefully I did not specify if the 2ns shooter was a he or a she.

It’s certainly possible that a concealed shooter would know they would die if they failed, but it’s possible they wouldn’t. I’m just stating a possible reason why a second shooter would not shoot after the Secret Service got Trump standing again.

I know a second shooter could have been female, but I’m old, I remember when it was acceptable to say “he” for a person of unknown sex, and I’m also conservative politically, and female in real life. I would estimate that around 90% of professional assassins are male.

[bigtim]

@roger-knight

Looking at the data in the drawing we can exclude that shots have been fired from the water tower or from the 2nd floor building. I would even go further and say the shot is coming from somewhere from the building 6 wall. As you can see, we are excluding a lot of possibilities, and we can stop analyzing them and save time for other topics.

I’m in general agreement that a process of elimination from wildly wrong trajectories is a excellent methodology to focus on the viable locations, of which there really are only a few (vents, 2 story AGR rooftop, and perhaps 2nd floor window, which you apparently discount but I’m not sure).

As for the vents, I haven’t enough information but height would be a major concern. Is the bleachers/crowd in the line of sight? This is the best photo I have and appears to be level with Trump’s torso, and I see a LOT of obstacles in the shooting lane from any of the vents in question, particularly bleacher and many layers of humans shielding and obstructing a clear view of Trump. I simply cannot see a shooting lane.

Furthermore, firing thru open vents would be extremely difficult. And add to that, they’d have to be open for several minutes to get a good shot. It’s not something one would just spring open, fire, and close. One would have to open vents, get a target acquisition, steady, aim, fire, etc. This takes minutes of patience, it’s not a quick “drive by” shooting. We have fairly good videos of that area immediately before, during, and afterwards and I have seen no evidence of vents being opened or disturbed, nor has any spectator suggested they opened.

@roger-knight

So, we have all been trying to do that, but frankly speaking, all videos that have been released seem to have photo shop paint over the vents. So, why would somebody cover up the vents if there was nothing to hide? Actually, it confirms even more that we have calculated correctly, because it is very suspicious behavior to cover up these two vents on all videos.

Have they been “covered up on all videos?” I seem to recall seeing contemporaneous videos during the shooting, and clearly see the vents in closed positions. I did see videos where, as it was explained by others, low quality compressed and blended these vents in. I was initially suspect of it too until it was explained in a sensible manner.

All we really have for the vents is:

1. Good theory
2. Similar trajectory
3. Similar sound patterns/times
4. GN and the other counter sniper whereabouts suspect

But the vent theory has really big problems:

1. No shooting lane - the biggest unavoidable problem
2. Vents never shown to be opened and even if opened, extremely hard to fire thru vents from a recessed position - another big problem

@roger-knight

Simply saying that the bullet hit Trumps ear and completely lost its trajectory and therefore give up this project is not an option.

Never said that we should give up but I have said it’s a large variable and not conclusive.

@roger-knight

I think everybody in this forum should think with an open mind and seriously try to find out what really happened that day, because a LOT does not add up.

I fully agree.

[roger-knight]

Hi BigTim,

Thank you for your feedback. Maybe we try one issue by the time…

@bigtim

and I see a LOT of obstacles in the shooting lane from any of the vents in question

I have configured everything in CAD. In the beginning I did not include the left bleachers and the fence, but then people drew my attention for them being a possible obstacle, I added them. Please have a look. If you have any further obstacles want to be cleared, I will gladly integrate them into my CAD. However, keep in mind the vent is fairly close to Crooks, so if indeed there are obstacles for the vents, it would also be a problem for Crooks.

[phasefive]

@bigtim

This is the best photo I have

What is the black arrow pointing at?

[kincses-zsolt]

window

[roger-knight]

or the vent… and the people are in the way?

At first glance on my CAD it looks to be clear, the shots passing towards the lower corner of the bleachers, but I would have to simulate and include the correct floor heights to make sure… I will do that.

But funny you guys mention it, because somebody in this forum noticed that the way everything was setup, the entire footprint of this rally was rotated a bit clockwise. Without this rotation, the left bleachers would have been an issue!

@roger-knight

I took the time to rotate the elements to be aligned as you indicated and surprisingly (or maybe, not surprisingly) the left bleachers upper left corner would have been in the way of the trajectory…

[bigtim]

@roger-knight

I have configured everything in CAD. In the beginning I did not include the left bleachers and the fence, but then people drew my attention for them being a possible obstacle, I added them. Please have a look. If you have any further obstacles want to be cleared, I will gladly integrate them into my CAD. However, keep in mind the vent is fairly close to Crooks, so if indeed there are obstacles for the vents, it would also be a problem for Crooks.

Your CAD doe not seem to align with photographic evidence nor other calculations. Remember the building sits in a depression. The vents are about 9’ up, and the ridge peak is about 15 to 17.5’ up (depending on who did the math), so from the ridge the shooter is about 6 to 8.5’ taller than the vents, or maybe double the elevation. That’s a big deal.

Someone else did these calculations putting the vents approximately 9’ high. The bleachers - and humans standing on them waving big signs - seem to impeded with the visual line of sight to Trump. This lines up with the famous video/image of Trump speaking and AGR#6 in the background. There’s 1 window (“window 3”) barely visible but mostly obscured and the vents would not have a significantly better “view” from my assessment. Extrapolating the crowd beyond the still image to our viewers right, crowd only gets taller, it obscures all the windows and vents to the right of our view (“windows 2 and 1” and corresponding vents). I just do not see a good shooting lane at Trump from that area.

In this image, we can plainly see Crooks has a excellent unobstructed shooting lane. We can barely see the window and there is no clear shooting lane. By extension, the vents just a couple feet higher, likewise have no good shooting lane FROM THIS IMAGE. I acknowledge it’s not a perfect image showing the perfect angle but it’s pretty close …

From this and other pictures, I’d guess the fence is approximately 6 to 7 feet tall, with Crooks being 6’4" and possible standing in a depression or factoring depth perception. So the vents, around 9’ high, slightly above the windows would seemingly clear the fence, so that obstacle can likely be omitted, however.

[roger-knight]

I can already debunk one of your measurements, namely 51 feet and 7”, because the vent is exactly at 25 panels (2 feet standard panels). So, the correct dimension would be 50 feet.

I will get back to you on this topic.

[macd]

If my understanding is correct, James Copenhaver was standing up in the bleachers southeast of Trump and was hit by a bullet in his arm and abdomen. So one of the bullets had a clear path from the shooter to a point in space which would be about two feet directly below the point from which the photo was taken (eye level).

With all the modelling that has been done, can someone reproduce the view toward the AGR complex from a point two feet below the view in this photo? If one could do this, and adjust all the other potential obstacles accordingly, one would be able to determine - for at least one of the bullets - which shooting lanes were open and which were not.

[phasefive]

[offtheback]

@kincses-zsolt

Just so I understand, what time stamped segments of the data are you using to correlate with?

[kwaka]

One thing that does stand out as unusual is how the orange temporary safety fence was put up around the AC unit in the days after the event. It is an occupational health and safety message that this unit has been damaged. Or maybe someone wants to avoid closer inspection of this unit?

The hole in the wall just to the right of this unit is smaller, but permanently open.

[bumblebeeez]

That fence is no more than 6 feet tall and the chain link across it dips lower than that because it was taken off the lead wire. In some places the chain link is bent and tugged down.

[pk2019]

@offtheback

Maybe all I am most interested in is .1 seconds after a few of the correlation peaks, including the first autocorrelation one as a baseline.

Will do that too, but on program level. In the meantime I’ve reduced the previously huge pdfs and also found a way how to also provide audio data together with r an p-values.

Below you’ll find new pdfs for stream 1, still problematic because the plot symbols remain too large. Within the lattice graphics system I’ve still found no way to reduce their size and thus ease oversight, except by decimating the data points, say every 3rd. But I can generate,e.g., only the first second after the first shot.
1382_202407131806_Unit5-0.mp4.stream-1.aac.shot-1-sample.pdf (70.0 KB)
1382_202407131806_Unit5-0.mp4.stream-1.aac.shot-1-corr.pdf (3.6 MB)

[vegaspatriot]

Of I had to guess, it’s simply due diligence to put a warning up for people who want to get on the roof and see for themself…who might fall and try to sue AGR. That orange barricade fence is up around all of the HVAC and other equipment, at least on the west side. It’s a form of “No Tresspassing” sign, likely put up for insurance purposes, since their property is not fenced in.

[daniloraf]

Trailer voice from the 90’s…
THIS SUMMER…BULLETS WILL GO DOWN… THEN GO UP AGAIN! BUT WAIT… THERE’S NEW ELEVATION DATA AND THE MAN IN THE HIGH ROOF AIN’T TAKING IT

@howdoiknowthisinfo

the only thing that could change my mind about the high roof as being the shooting location is the angle/heading/bearing of the bullet at Trump’s position.

What about the bleacher? High Roof needs to match Trump AND Bleacher AND Bullet Drop. If you consider Trump alone, the angle for instance could be any angle you choose from any of the places, you would still get a hit. I’d forget about Trump’s nose bearing and focus on the elevations of the scenario, for your sanity. The mystery could lie elsewhere, on different questions, such as WHY didn’t Crooks go for HighRoof, and why we keep getting jolted back to that Vent and a 2nd shooter because of… you know why, I believe. That said, I will plot your high roof for common 5.56 with the new elevation data from Paramount Tactical, Google and Bleachers.

Here you go… for common 5.56 55 grains ammo, the bullet would hit 1.85 feet below the the estimated impact. I have to say… it’s not bad, not bad at all, considering the controversy around elevations. BUT, the audio crack-thump timing still doesn’t match. Also, I’m very disappointed that Paramount Tactical didn’t show that bleacher elevation on their video.
The Excel spreadsheet with HighRoof is here.

As a curiosity, this is around where the bullet would hit the ground 410 yards away at that angle of -1,3678 degrees (no obstacles in it’s way, of course). If I’m not mistaken, that’s close to the building assigned to FOP, a LE union of sorts.

[roger-knight]

@bigtim:
May I ask you, the way I explained to daniloraf, to please indicate the reference points you are doubting in the below drawing? I would be glad to provide you the supporting document.

[howdoiknowthisinfo (howdoiknowthisinfo.com)]

@daniloraf

As a curiosity, this is around where the bullet would hit the ground 410 yards away at that angle of -1,3678 degrees (no obstacles in it’s way, of course). If I’m not mistaken, that’s close to the building assigned to FOP, a LE union of sorts.

yes, that is right.
when @rough_country_gypsy did his drone survey, I asked him to inspect that building to see for repaired or renewed windows or doors or similar as they may have taken some bullets from coming in from the AGR site, but he was chased away before any inspection could happen…

if you look at your line, you will see that it 1. grazes Trump’s ear, 2. interacts with the bleachers’ railing and then 3. plants itself in the JCB beam.

if you use the above picture as ground overlay you will see that your line will traverse through the JCB hydraulic lift at the left in this picture.

as Mike Bell showed in one of his earlier video’s on the Trump shooting, you will see that the hydraulic beam was hit by the first bullet, and he also aligns his first shot from “somewhere” on the AGR site and uses the JCB hydraulic lift at the receiving end of the 1st shot…

[kincses-zsolt]

Let me backtrack my operations…

I have converted the dashcam footage into 3 audio files. (Actually I used the online converter, because ffmpeg does not run in my notebook.)

ffmpeg -i 1382_202407131806_Unit5-0.mp4 -vn -map 0:a:0 -ss 00:04:55 -t 00:00:10 stream-1.aac
ffmpeg -i 1382_202407131806_Unit5-0.mp4 -vn -map 0:a:1 -ss 00:04:55 -t 00:00:10 stream-2.aac
ffmpeg -i 1382_202407131806_Unit5-0.mp4 -vn -map 0:a:2 -ss 00:04:55 -t 00:00:10 stream-3.aac

Then I exported the audio data into csv files and imported into libre office, skipped almost 2 seconds at the beginning and at the end. So the convolution arrea is “$A$80000:$C$395000” and the offset runs from -1000 to +1000.
The sample rate is 48000, so the convolution shift is about 0.02 seconds.

I was surprised to see that periodicity.

(Sorry, I cannot quote the code correctly.)

Maybe I should have divided the sum. (But with what? I guess with the 0 offset correlation sum.)

private void correlate( int chA, int chB )

{
  int offset, indexA, indexB;
  long corr = 0;
  string name;
  TextWriter tw;
  //
  name = (chA+1).ToString() + (chB+1).ToString() + ".csv";
  Console.Write( "{0}", name );
  tw = File.CreateText( name );
  for ( offset = -1000; offset < +1000; ++offset )
  {
    corr = 0;
    for ( indexA = 80000; indexA <= 395000; ++indexA )
    {
      indexB = indexA + offset;
      corr += array[indexA,chA] * array[indexB,chB];
    }
    tw.Write( "{0};", offset );
    tw.Write( "{0};", corr );
    tw.WriteLine();
  }
  Console.WriteLine();
  tw.Close();
  tw.Dispose();
  tw = null;
}

[kincses-zsolt]

It was this, shifted by from -1000 to +1000 samples.

Let me know if you need some special region.