Just to be clear, I don’t agree with those lights being gunshots.
If anything fired from that room, it did so during the Stewert original audio timeframe when no cameras were on that window. It was a good 10 second gap with another 5 seconds of weird blurry curtain/photoshopped window.
You can call it flat earth, but I think even flat earthers could handle dropping a temporary window pane and then putting it back in place in 15 seconds.
Try it yourself. Mimic the movement. It’s a non issue.
The complicated part would be the sniper shots and well…he missed because of a head turn.
It think this would exclude the three 2nd story windows from being a 2nd shooter position. We are left with the vent or window in the facade below Crooks.
I think it’s cute that people are assuming they know for a fact that the shot that hit Trump’s ear also hit the bleacher and/or hit the bleacher without any deflection.
There’s zero proof that those are the same bullet. There’s zero proof that there wasn’t any type of deflection.
But people have been running with it like it’s gospel. Cute.
I was only trying to be helpful and exclude the impossible. A bullet from one of the three windows on the 2nd floor would need to hit Trumps ear and be deflected 20’ to the right after traveling only 80’. Considering the speed of the bullet and its mass relative to the mass/hardness of Trump’s ear… I believe that puts it in the impossible realm.
Again, I thought this would be a clear and obvious analysis. A bullet from a third story window could have hit Dutch in the corner of the bleacher, but its trajectory would have been 14’ to 22’ to the right of Trump as it passed by Trump. That would not be a miss (or deflection). That would have to be an intentional retargeting.
Multiple people have been using the bullet hitting the bleacher for trying to calculate trajectories.
There’s zero evidence that it’s the same bullet. It would just be a theory to assume so.
If it is the same bullet, there’s zero evidence that the bullet didn’t have some type of deflection occurring after striking Trump’s ear. It would just be a theory to assume anything past the knowledge that a bullet grazed Trump’s ear.
That’s why when I look at the bullet that hit Trump: I don’t use any other possible bullet strikes to calculate where it could have come from. I only check to see if it’s possible for a bullet fired from that location to strike Trump’s ear and whether the distance makes sense with the audio.
One other point to consider is Trump’s head turn. Because of that, the trajectory can be roughly backtracked to a general cone of origin.
The body cam officer is not looking at the window when shots are fired. He starts running back to the car immediately before shot 1 goes out, after he looks at the third window himself.
I lined it up from a synced image with the Stewert video and original audio after the shots.
I confirmed it with a synced image with the Stewert video and original audio before the shots.
There is no video of the 3rd window at the times shots 1-3 are fired.
Gee, no wonder there is no audio for that body cam. Officer would look super sus taking off running before actual shot 1.
I think @sgt-raven already said some time ago that people should distinguish between a hypothesis and a theory. A theory is a thing built on proven hypotheses.
The word “theory” has multiple definitions, including a scientific explanation and a general idea.
General idea
A theory can also be an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. For example, a political theory is an ethical theory about the law and government.
In everyday use
In everyday use, “theory” can also mean an untested hunch or guess without supporting evidence.
One thing this image does prove is that the red glow in window 3 was not from the barn. For this to even be considered means that the video was taken at the western edge of building 6, which it was not. More in the middle, eastern side of the building. The reflection angles off the barn do not match as a source of the redness in window 3.
offtheback, do I understand you right that you w’d like to correlate the filtered shot 4 signals with the filtered audio track between 15 and 35 seconds?
I think we are now 90% in agreement with hypothesis about shots coming from window 3 and simply at this moment disagree with the fact that there is video evidence caught on the body cam BWC2-122110 with a smoking gun.
Since there is only one truth, hopefully we can all find out at a later stage what really happend.
There’s a time and place for scientific accuracy, but to date, we have received multiple different versions of various sets of “facts”, things are being changed constantly, new information is added, etc…
So for now, it seems fine for people to be creative and think outside the box in general, unless there is actual contradictory evidence or zero reason to make an assumption.
Example: Sniper that left trying to initially insinuate that he spotted Crooks on a table when he left. Well, he didn’t. Because Crooks was at the vendors at that time. But it was real nice for them to leave that out there for awhile as if it was Crooks.
I share some of your concern. So let me give you some hard data to use in your critiques. I can measure this because I have a CAD drawing of the site from which to make these measurements.
The distance from the AGR building to Trump is 450’ and then from Trump to the rear corner of the bleacher is 80’. if Trump’s ear is the fulcrum of a see-saw… moving the right (bleacher) side 1" moves the back projection (left side of the see-saw) 5.525". So you can use 5.525 as a multiplier on any error you suspect in either Trumps ear position or in the bleacher hit position. If Trump is 1" lower and the hit at the bleacher 1" higher, then you have an 11" error when you back trace the bullet. It is very probable our models are off by that much or more.
Likewise, even if the models are right, but the bullet trajectory is altered by 1" by hitting Trump’s ear, then the back projection is again off by 5.5". I can easily believe that the bullet could have tumbled after hitting Trumps ear and the trajectory altered 1" maybe 2" at the most. But it seems unlikely in my mind that the tiny soft tissue hit would deviate a trajectory of a bullet traveling at 2500+ ft/sec more than an 1" or 2" in 80 feet.
You can extrapolate the 5.5 multiplier to what every number you believe the models might be off. For example, if you believe the Trump/bleacher positions are off 1 foot, then the back trace is off by 5.5 feet. But there is still a range of certainty where you can trust the models to exclude the impossible. They certainly exclude the water tower and the three open windows. I believe they also exclude the 2nd shooter in the canopy (the canopy over the entry to AGR) and a shooter from the roof immediately behind Crooks if the shooter was next to the 2 story window. The models are good enough to put those to rest.
I believe they also exclude a shooter from the roof of the other 2 story building that is far behind Crooks, though a shot from a 2nd story window from that building would be right over Crooks’ head and is not excluded by the models (even though I think the audio data excludes this option).
So what are we left with: Crooks shooting all 8 shots or a 2nd shooter somewhere in the facade below Crooks. Roger knows this. He knows, if there is a 2nd shooter, the shooter is either from a vent or window. He is sorting out the options for the community to critique and improve.
One final note. The plan positions of the models are much more accurate than the vertical height locations, since the plan comes from aerial photographs and clear plan drawings of the site. So left/right accuracy (looking down) of the models are very trustworthy.
The text message Woods sent did not describe Crooks.
Woods didn’t testify that it was Crooks.
Nicol’s CNN testimony suggested it was Crooks, but didn’t state it directly. (Intentional misdirection or just assumed?)
The FBI did state it was “the suspect” who was sighted. (Based on interview with Woods and/or Nicol?)
The “fake news” went with it being Crooks.
I had it figured as Crooks based on Nicol’s CNN interview statement, but dropped that after the Vendor Alley sighting was confirmed accurate. Here is Nicol’s CNN statement:
“Nicol thought little of the text at the time, he said. Nor did he immediately connect it to a slightly built, long haired young man he saw sitting below the window where he was stationed at AGR about 45 minutes later.”
The assumption being he subsequently connected it to Crooks.
It would be disingenuous to act as if misinformation hasn’t been purposefully spread by multiple people involved with the case, seemingly for insinuation purposes. It’s happened again and again. Full stop.
I just came across this one. Maybe nobody has seen this one yet?
Bodycam BWC2-122110 with audio with all 10 shots?
@bumblebeeez, sorry, this video seems to debunk your theory claiming the body cam does not catch the shooting on camera. It seems at first sight that the flash comming from window 3 is shot 2 or 3?
Some of the evidence being presented is getting stranger by the day. I’m more convinced than ever that Crooks fired all 8 shots. I’ll be there on Monday with another investigator. I’ll report my findings/opinions. Hopefully, I’ll be able to bring something to this investigation that has yet to be revealed. I will be droning, interviewing, and photographing.
