How would you refute the following scenario?:
Crooks fired the first 3 shots with subsonic training ammunition. These projectiles had a high air resistance and were so light that they landed in the area between the two fences.
Crooks’ rifle was manipulated so that a radio signal was sent in time when he pulled the trigger. This allowed a rifle located in the rear two-story building to be fired at the right time through a very small hole in the front using a preset device.
The reports of shots fired from the rear building could have been as low as 20dB on Dave Stewart’s video recording.
As far as I know, there are rifles whose muzzle blast would be 130dB loud without a suppressor.
The distance to Dave Stewart’s microphone reduces the sound by around 40dB.
A normal suppressor can reduce the sound by 30dB.
The gun would have been fired in a windowless and additionally soundproofed room. This might have reduced the sound by a further 10 dB.
If an additional 30dB reduction was possible due to the very large suppressor (custom made, stationary, 1 yard diameter, 1 yard length), you would get about 20dB when the sound reaches Dave Stewart’s microphone.
In this scenario, the report comes from Crook’s weapon and the projectile that creates the sonic boom comes from another weapon.
Can you somehow rule out this scenario?
