I agreeing with you on this particular, but from a rather different analysis of the audio. I am making a case for a fairly narrow scope of where such a place could be.
I am looking at the first arrival times as if I were trying to analyze the seismic data from an earthquake. I agree with your dissatisfaction of assigning those two very distinct spectral signatures, and possible echos, to a single source. But those spectra and echos are not my focus in my post, and I am not arguing for or against your interpretation of them.
In your video, you hinted at the technique I am promoting: Take multiple recordings from diverse locations, identify shots 1-8 in them, and arbitrarily align them in time such that shot #1’s arrival is aligned in time across them. Now look at the arrival times of shots #2-8. Any difference in distance between the source and receiver (to use seismic terms) will show up as a misalignment of the arrival times in the graph. There are other possible causes, e.g. frequency dispersion, or an inaccurate pick of the first arrival wave, but those errors have to be relatively small such that, if we find something above, say, 50msec difference of an arrival time at two different receiver locations, it gets far harder for me to say they all have to be traversing the same distance. For example: I think shot #9 appears in multiple of the recordings I plotted and its arrival time is so different among the recordings that I am very uncertain I have even identified it correctly, so I didn’t even mark it on my screen capture.
I have failed to find substantial differences among shots 1-8 so far, but I admit there might be another recording from another location that I have not seen. I might also have done a poor job picking the first arrivals on the data I already have.
I am not a seismologist, but I worked with reflection seismologists–not earthquake seismologists–for ~15 years and had to learn the basic techniques. Aligning waveforms and manually picking first arrival times is primitive compared to the computations that are possible–including a triangulation to the source locations–but I am disinclined even begin the necessary calculus and computation for that unless/until I can find a recording showing more prominent difference in arrival times. (The data I have now are clearly degenerate in the mathematical sense.) The geometry I have found receivers for (around the main crowd plus the stewart location), again assuming correct identification of shots arrival times, constrains where a second source could be. That geometry constrains the possible offset from source 1-3 to that of source 4-8 to be rather narrow (less than 50ft, probably much less) along the perpendicular to the line from source 1-3 to my receivers. If the Crooks position is one of the two source positions, the 2nd source would have to shoot pretty close to (far less than 50ft left or right) over Crook’s head, or from right below him in the building. Otherwise, it could not hide from this seismic calculation. But my calculations do not limit the distance that a 2nd shooter could be “beyond” Crooks from the point of view of the receiver locations I have.
I have yet to find a recording from the opposite side of the AGW building from the stewart recording location. I would happily look closely at one, but I have spent some time fishing through the postings on peakprosperity.com already without success.
