from your username we can deduce you are involved in law enforcement or the military.
in either case, it would not surprise you that facts and the corroboration of information is very important before we can come to whatever conclusion.
the first time I was shown the 3d model, I found it odd that the floor levels that were mentioned were all round values in foot, and that these values did not match what I observed when checking google earth. I am open to accepting that google earth is not a perfect reference, but the difference that I observe is a non-negligible 7 ft = 2.1 meters…
so, that is how it all started: I started asking where that vertical offset came from…
now, just less than 2 weeks later, roger adjusted version 5 of the 3D model with higher precision floor level values, which reduce the uncertainty and increase the precision of the model from 30 cm (1 ft) uncertainty to 0.01 ft, which is a great improvement, and as you may have noticed, this updated version allows me to confirm that the vertical difference between the ground floor level of AGR building 6 and the ground floor level of Trump’s podium is more or less negligible: the difference between these two ground levels in roger’s model and in my model is about half a foot, and that is fine by me.
so, the only thing we still are not clear on is the overall vertical offset, and this is very important, because the values that roger is using are 7 ft = 2.1 meters lower than what you would get from google earth… that is much more than a rounding error…
I am simply trying to recreate the 3D model in google earth, and this fails due to discrepancies…
you can call this whatever you want, but if the model that is used to evaluate possible shooter locations cannot be verified and does not seem to match reality, I think there is something wrong with that model.
you call this criticizing, but it is nothing more or less than an attempt to check whether the model is valid or not, and I think you cannot disagree with the necessity that claims are underpinned with unambiguously solid evidence.
every time I ask for the elevation data, I get the same reply: we are using the topographic KML map from Land ID.
I have no access to this “topographic KML map from Land ID”, which means that (1) I cannot validate whether these values are plausible, and (2) I cannot confirm that roger is using this map correctly…
in some posts there was a link to a google drive file called “Trump Rally Butler 2024_.kml” which is supposed to be a precise representation of the rally area, well, I checked that file, and it contains 44 points with longitude and latitude values without altitude/elevation values, so that file cannot have been used to deduce the elevations of either the AGR building(s) or Trump’s podium or the bleachers either.
I prefer a direct approach to avoid ambiguity, so I ask direct questions.
you may see that as inappropriate, but that is not how I see it, I just want clarity about things and if people avoid answering simple and direct questions, that is highly suspicious.
as you may have noticed, it took about a week before I got the answer to the very simple question about the angle between the line of sight from the roof top of AGR building 6 and the podium.
in a 3D CAD program, it takes seconds to visualize that angle, yet he stalled me for about a week.
I would be surprised if you would take that for granted…
and instead of being open minded and encouraging different the analysis of views while analyzing this ballistics puzzle, he tries to steer everybody into the vent direction which is not the most realistic one if you ask me…
based on the very valuable feedback you have given with several of your posts, I can deduce that you have plenty of gun knowledge and expertise, so let me ask you an open question, based on all the information that you have seen passing by and your expertise and knowledge: what is the most likely scenario for what happened during that day before, during and shortly after the assassination attempt in regard to the actor or actors that shot at that rally?
as a matter of reference the first version I saw of the 3D model (this model is very imprecise and does not allow any corroboration whatsoever):
yesterday’s version of roger’s 3D model includes much more detail which almost enables its validation (which implies that it is still impossible to confirm that it is a valid representation of reality):