Here you go:
1 Like
thanks!
I just fetched it from Sci-Hub | An Unusual Feature of Graze Gunshot Wounds. Academic Forensic Pathology, 6(2), 291–300 | 10.23907/2016.030 as the .se-site was geoblocking me!
What’s the uncertainty range of the calculation?
1 Like
Elevation was included. And it makes essentially no difference. The temperature, humidity, and pressure essentially obviate the need for elevation.
1 Like
Correcting my comment.
Hi Phase 5,
Looking good, we are soon sync.
However, we should both agree on the same numbers, otherwise this simulation does not look serious if we have two different numbers and get the same result.
I, for the longest time had the stage at 45":
But multiple people challenged this height, namely schroederized who is extremely precise (see his post I mentioned before) he is at 48”, and it was also discussed in this post:
We should put Trump as high as possible and the bleachers as low as possible for the benefit of the doubt and making it much harder for somebody to debunk our calculation. Finally, I did that, look at my post:
So, if you would also take 48” for the stage and you can for sure take 2 feet difference from the AGR 6 building to the stage, because we have that well documented. Nobody can challenge that point…
PhaseFive,
I believe that my drawing of the Speedy Bleachers reflects more accurately the dimensions of the bleachers that were actually there. After noticing the name brand on the bleachers, I researched and found a factory design drawing for that exact 10 row towable bleacher. Since the image I found was simply a jpg, I traced and redrew the end view of the bleacher with CAD, making sure that all dimensions matched and scaled correctly.
In one of Chris’ shows, he revealed that Dmonk’s drawings were based on 8 Big Assumptions. Instead of using reliable, accurate data that was available for the Speedy Bleachers, he used general bleacher codes (per ICC 503.1) and assembly instructions from Belson standard aluminum bleachers, though I can’t imagine why. Please see Assumptions 6, 7 & 8 in the attachment. When I offered Dmonk a .dwg or .dgn file of the bleacher drawing, I received no reply.
You can be the judge as to which better represents the bleachers that were actually there that day.
In response to your remark regarding the elevation data, I agree. Garbage in, garbage out. Without accurate survey data to verify elevations in specific locations, there was no point in me continuing to waste my time.
3 Likes
That was a great find, BTW, getting the name on the bleachers. “The devil is in the details” is a saying I’ve used over the years whenever giving training on incident investigations. This is a classic example, especially since those working on sound analysis and trajectory are dealing with such minute measures. Kudos!
@howdoiknowthisinfo The model currently uses the times of the rifle reports, which travel at the speed of sound, so bullet velocity does not affect that. However, it has been pointed out that one or both of the two recorders in front of AGR 6 may have picked up sonic cracks vs. rifle reports, so I’m planning to look into that by making those 10 to 30ms adjustments to the model and seeing how it affects the results.
2 Likes
Given how the FBI is sanitizing the crime scene, will even congress get the caliber of the bullet from incidental targets like the shot hose? This is suspicious as all hell, and the FBI is pretty much ensuring a few things:
-
They can say what they like about the evidence they hide.
-
Nobody will be able to gainsay them.
-
The problem is that their credibility is completely shot. Who will believe them?
BTW, interesting video below.
Question: WHY did they assign counter-snipers that day when they’d never done so before, according to the counter-snipers?
2 Likes
5.56mm or .223 cal
???
@macanon I don’t think that counter-snipers use subsonic rounds, due to the diminished performance that would result. They care about accuracy, not sound.
I’ve seen a map showing that local law enforcement had teams on the roofs of the covered bleachers near the pond and tractor pull area. I can’t find that map now, unfortunately. But, anyway, I’m considering those positions as a possible location for Shot 10.
2 Likes
Sounds like you were more careful in your research.
To answer your question if this is a waste of time. If we keep reminding ourselves these are probability explorations, then no. I only fear someone will take them to be definitive. Maybe we should give percentages of confidence. For example the percentage difference between 11’2.5" and 10’-8.5" is only 4 1/2%. So I think I will start putting an accuracy note as “allow 5% variance in drawing dimensions”. Like a did in this new drawing:
I have 97.5% confidence in my plan dimensions. My confidence is grade elevations is only 75% at best. But certain relative findings may not be subject to much error, for example, I can nail down the vent location and Crooks location and can know that Crooks’ shot will always be about 13" to 14" lower than the 2nd shooter’s at the back of the bleacher, regardless of inaccuracies in grade elevations (when both are shooting for Trump’s ear).
3 Likes
@cmartenson I realize I may get booted off this Topic for saying this, but I believe the audio data that I’ve been analyzing is clearly most consistent with there being only one shooter at the Trump rally. My evidence is explained here:
8 Likes
I’d also like to point out two very important videos that have received little to no attention. Five days ago, Harryx posted a video showing a super high-speed drone (or drones) flying during the rally, as well as during the shooting. I’m sure that everyone has watched the realDJStew videos, but has anyone noticed the high-speed drones? Apparently, so many of us are wrapped up in trajectories and ballistics that these videos have gone unnoticed. When I tried to bring attention to them by creating a new topic, I learned that I was not able to do so because I’m not a paying member. Please take a look at them.
One shooter or two, this clearly indicates that a mission was underway to assassinate President Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoyEbU9BX88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYuTVJgx0Qw&t=78s
4 Likes
Great! I’m following along with everything and trying not to inject my opinions into every post. I want you guys to work this out. Please reach out if you need anything else I may have to offer.
And here’s shot #1, courtesy of Mr. Higher-Res Ross.
This is fantastic work! Everyone should watch this.
You were able to shrink the error inherent in a moving microphone several-fold by using video data to better estimate the cell phone locations. Taking into account multiple microphones now has the first 8 shots coming from a roughly one meter area.
Looking forward to more detail on shots 9 and 10.
Surely there must be another police cruiser that was not moving and had its microphone on. Particularly if that was not close to the cruiser already being used as a recording.
1 Like
Clarification: what I mean is could the kill shot have been not shot #10; but a typical high velocity round but with the sound of the shot so suppressed that we don’t hear the report on any of the recordings? (the sonic boom of course cannot be suppressed, but for example if the round came from bleachers west of the pond, it wouldn’t have come very close to the podium microphone)