thanks!
I will feed my ballistics trajectory model with bullet speeds starting from 1600 fps and up and see where we get…
thanks again!
So, your heights reference is Google Earth, by simply pointing with the mouse? Are you serious?
So, if you point to the roof of the ARG building 6, you will get the height of the top of the roof, right? But we need the height of the floor, not the height of the roof!
I suggest you quickly go back and take my suggested crash course which I posted here on August 6:
Once you have leaned that, then you can go to the next level, by importing the Land ID KML file into Google Earth, then finally you will start getting the same numbers I am using as a reference.
I don’t want to pick a fight, but I must mention it again:
-
The fact that you are using the poked hydraulic hose (which is the third impact point, Trumps ear 1, bleachers 2, hose 3) as your reference point
-
The fact that the bleachers and trumps ear are approximately the same height (in absolute) makes the bullet trace almost horizontal, like I mentioned in my first post to you, your back traced shot will never make it to the height of the roof you are referring to
-
The fact that you simply click on the heights with Google Earth, using the most primitive way
Leads me to say, that your knowledge is insufficient to make such “back – tracing” calculations. Therefore, your usernames question is justified:
howdoyouknowthisinfo? of which I would answer, you don’t…
1 Like
what is the url for this data?
the bullet’s deflection while grazing Trump’s ear is very minor, as I have shown you with the recreation of that grazing as recorded with a 100.000 fps camera…
the deflection of the bullet due to its interaction with the railing of the bleachers is unknown. if it was grazing that railing it may have been minor, if it was a penetration, it would have been major.
we simply do not know.
what we do know is that the 1st bullet punctured the hydraulics of the hydraulic lift, and that hydraulic lift happens to be in an almost straight line between the alleged roof shooter, Trump, the corner of the right bleachers and the hydraulic beam…
so, that is what we do know, and I use simple observations to come to these observations…
that is how I know this information…
and this also implies that it does not really matter which point would be used for that back tracing, as each of these points lie on almost the same line…
the reason why I am using the hydraulic beam as the reference is twofold:
- the location of this beam can be established much more precisely than Trump’s or the bleacher’s impact…
- the distance between Trump and the hydraulic beam is larger, which enhances precision when extrapolating to greater distances…
so, where can I download that Land ID kml file from?
Hi Rough_Country_Gypsy,
I think there are only two hypothesis that should be considered:
- Crooks shot all 8 shots
- Another shooter shot 1- 3 and Crooks shot 4 -8
In the beginning Chris immediately pointed out in his YouTube the two different gun shots noises, one muffled and one with echoes. Just by using my common sense, and looking at his data I agreed with Chris.
1:0 for hypothesis 2
The fact that we are very lucky to have the first bullet grazing Trumps ear and then hitting the bleachers corner locking two points in space, I and a big portion of this community took the challenge to “back trace” the bullet. This would be another indicator which hypothesis is more likely. If the back traced bullet leads back to Crooks within a reasonable error rate, we could consider hypothesise 1 to be correct, making it 1:1 and making it a toss-up. But with all efforts done and everybody debunking or improving our two points defined in space, makes it impossible that Crooks could have made that shot. You know, nobody has given us plausible two points in space that would lead back to Crooks. If somebody has that data, we, in this forum would be very glad to evaluate it.
So, it is 2:0 for hypothesis 2
So now we assume by the noises of the gun there are two shooters, our back traced bullet narrows it down from where this shot was coming from, excluding the water tower, the woods and many other places. It is sure it is coming from building 6, most suspect being Vent 3 at this moment. That points to the needle in the haystack. Now we just need to find the needle by analysing all videos we have and concentrate on Vent 3 and a bit of the surroundings. The back traced bullet is very powerful information, because you simply can’t analyse all of the videos and all of the points. We are focused on a very specific place now.
So this brings us to our status of today and if you look at my latest post, it seems very very likely that a serous amount of photo shop has been applied on the entire wall of building 6, which confirms that we are on the right track and over the target:
3 : 0 for hypothesis 2
Everybody should help and analyse the wall of building 6. The needle is hidden there…
2 Likes
sorry but you are wasting my time.
Just follow the instructions in my above motioned post:
You will find the KML file for download. I am serving you all my information on a silver platter, at the least please take time to read it…
2 Likes
I made a typo in the name of Gary from Paramount Tactical.
His correct name is Gary Melton…
that kml file contains 44 datapoints, as I mentioned before, and these do NOT give any elevation information…
so, where do you get your “reliable” kml file from Land ID from?
the kml file provides these coordinates:
-79.974675,40.857447 -79.971482,40.85649
-79.970936,40.856326 -79.970379,40.856159 -79.970231,40.856114
-79.969639,40.855935 -79.969134,40.855862 -79.967393,40.855606
-79.967345,40.8556 -79.967402,40.856539 -79.967426,40.856908
-79.968142,40.857123 -79.968472,40.857221 -79.96849,40.857496
-79.968507,40.857764 -79.968558,40.858551 -79.96879,40.858623
-79.968859,40.858496 -79.969194,40.8586 -79.969056,40.858854
-79.968568,40.858702 -79.967521,40.858376 -79.967598,40.85957
-79.967631,40.859569 -79.967633,40.859593 -79.967636,40.85964
-79.967775,40.859726 -79.967983,40.859718 -79.968646,40.85969
-79.970597,40.859606 -79.971589,40.859564 -79.971735,40.859551
-79.971764,40.859535 -79.971762,40.859515 -79.971759,40.859482
-79.97167,40.85844 -79.971678,40.858433 -79.971884,40.85826
-79.971902,40.858244 -79.973287,40.858639 -79.973473,40.858482
-79.973799,40.858204 -79.974276,40.857794
-79.974675,40.857447
Hi howdoiknowthisinfo,
rtfm
1 Like
I’m just starting to watch this. Gary @ Paramount Tactical had a drone operator with him on his visit to Butler. He had a fancy hi-tech drone that can do 3D and mapping. This is the first video containing some of that footage.
1 Like
it is certainly true that there are things I do not know, but what about this?
let’s look at what your “manual” to determine the “slop” of a trajectory learns…
I think we can agree on the assumption that the main street next to the green of the rally area is a street which is reasonably even, not necessarily horizontal, but at least it is an even street, and certainly not humpy-bumpy up and down, right?
that street is indicated with the yellow line (near the red arrow pointing down:
well, let’s now look at the elevation profile of that path:
do you really believe that that road is so bumpy as is suggested by that elevation profile?
if you really believe that that elevation profile matches that even road, you are beyond hope…
so, now let’s have a look at the elevation profile of the orange line that goes through the parking, over the location where Trump’s podium was placed and the pond:
if you honestly believe that in the above 2 pictures that first red arrow points at an elevation of 1324 ft and that second red arrow at an elevation of 1328 ft, you are beyond any hope…
now, let’s have a look at the red path through the AGR buildings:
do you really believe that the values are reliable, let alone make sense?
- the pointer on the top of the highest building on this path shows 1330 ft
- the pointer on top of the white building shows 1333 ft
- the pointer on top of building 6 shows 1335 ft
these values do not make any sense whatsoever, and if you think they do, I have really no idea what is going on here…
if you think I am wasting your time by simply pointing out things you strongly believe in do not making sense, that is up to you, but I did everything I could to make it as clearly as possible that the reference values you swear by are not based in reality…
it is certainly true that there are things I do not know, but what about this?
let’s look at what your “manual” to determine the “slop” of a trajectory learns…
I think we can agree on the assumption that the main street next to the green of the rally area is a street which is reasonably even, not necessarily horizontal, but at least it is an even street, and certainly not humpy-bumpy up and down, right?
that street is indicated with the yellow line (near the red arrow pointing down:
well, let’s now look at the elevation profile of that path:
do you really believe that that road is so bumpy as is suggested by that elevation profile?
if you really believe that that elevation profile matches that even road, you are beyond hope…
so, now let’s have a look at the elevation profile of the orange line that goes through the parking, over the location where Trump’s podium was placed and the pond:
if you honestly believe that in the above 2 pictures that first red arrow points at an elevation of 1324 ft and that second red arrow at an elevation of 1328 ft, you are beyond any hope…
now, let’s have a look at the red path through the AGR buildings:
do you really believe that any of these elevation profile values are any reliable, let alone make sense?
- the pointer on the top of the highest building on this path shows 1330 ft
- the pointer on top of the white building shows 1333 ft
- the pointer on top of building 6 shows 1335 ft
these values do not make any sense whatsoever, and if you think they do, I have really no idea what is going on here…
if you think I am wasting your time by simply pointing out things you strongly believe in do not making sense, that is up to you, but I did everything I could to make it as clearly as possible that the reference values you swear by are not based in reality…
1 Like
finally, we are starting to agree on something! Let’s celebrate!
1 Like
I am so glad you point this out, because it provides very useful independent and unbiased information:
Gary shows their estimates for:
- Trump’s ear/head height at 380.81m = 416.46 yd = 1249.38 ft above GPS sea level
- the position of the shooter on AGR building 6 at 381.171m = 416.85 yd = 1250.56 ft above GPS sea level
they are using GPS data which refers to elevations above the average sea level.
this data was shown by Gary Melton and is preliminary data, i.e., subject to some finetuning, but is is not unreasonable to assume that it will not change by several meters 
what matters is the position and elevation of the alleged shooter or shooters and Trump…
in my model, which uses google earth data, I get for these points:
- ear height of Trump: 412.86m = 137.62 yd = 1354.53 ft above google earth’s sea level
- man who died on the roof: 412.30m = 450.90 yd = 1352.70 ft above google earth’s sea level
based on roger’s scheme, version 884-5, we get the following values:
- Trump’s ear position: 1337.335+11.76833 ft = 1349.10 ft = 449.70 yd = 411.21m
- Crooks’ roof position: 1335.15+15.4 ft = 1350.55 ft = 450.18 yd = 411.65 m
in his reference 884-5, roger puts crooks right on top of the roof, which does not make sense, so let’s correct that and let’s round roger’s value up to 1351.50 ft = 450.50 yd = 411.94 m
if we put this in a table overview, we get this:
I believe it is safe to say that the vent theory that roger has been pushing the past days is highly unlikely, because if the shooter was shooting horizontally or slightly down, it it is simply impossible that the shooter would have shot from a lower position than the roof top…
I am very hopeful that Gary Melton will provide us with corroborated measurement data, and I will update and align the outcome of my model with the ground levels reported by Gary as soon as they release the corroborated data…
dear Sgt Raven, I hope you will understand that we (that means you, myself and many in this forum) have good and the best intentions to find out what really happened that day, but I also hope that you understand that when someone (e.g., myself) finds out that something is off or just plain wrong, that they (in this case myself 
) do whatever it takes (sometimes directly) to bring that point forward…
bottom line: the measurements, even though preliminary, that have been reported by Gary from Paramount Tactical do NOT support roger’s model that pushes the vent hypothesis, and this model is based on seriously flawed assumptions and false data.
all I have been doing is pointing out that this model is not something that one should really put any stock in…
I rest my case, your honour…
Howdo, you come across as a bit prickly, as I might, too. Some of your posts feel like you take other posts, personally and reply as such. If so, then try and take your ego out of your posts. I try and look at things clinically, without emotion. I’m just saying. how it comes across from the other side of the screen.
Gary’s resent video shows a lot of thing better, and this is not the highest 4K resolution. Which I think will be given to him physically due to the size of the files. You might email him and ask him to show/share the 2 story building you’re interested in.
1 Like
yes, I am very aware of that.
I have been working for +27 years in a technical and research department where it is common to freely comment on each other’s models and configuration parameters, etc.
I am used to working with people where errors and anomalies can be reported freely, corrected when confirmed as errors, and then everyone moves on to the next iteration.
no hostility, no personal attacks, no egos, no repercussions, etc., are involved: when I make a mistake or when someone else points out that something is wrong, it does not matter: we correct and move on.
the models we work on evolve with time and based on progressive insights.
in one of your previous posts you said that I am a (freely worded ) arrogant bastard who is incapable of working in a team or collaborating with colleagues…
well, I have coordinated several multi-million dollar long-term research and industrial projects with industry and government sharks without any significant problems or encounters…
the reason I sometimes seem a bit irritated is because when I discover something is wrong, and people react defensively and even extremely hostile, without any good reason, it means they defend a hidden agenda…
I will hold back a little in my defense
anyway. for the past 25+ years (overlapping with the 27+ years mentioned above), I have also worked as an auditor of complex systems and as a forensic expert witness for various prosecutors…
the reason why I know what I know is simply because I invest effort in researching and hands-on experience.
as you have noticed, I include references to almost everything I say, just because that is what I do when I build my case, and so far, none of the things I have been saying have been proven wrong: lots of opinions and allegations have come my way, but nobody showed me the receipts proving that I was wrong in, e.g., the elevation profiles that we have been discussing the past week or so…
the only thing that was pointed out was the numbering scheme of the AGR buildings. originally, I believed that the BCESU was authoritative in the numbering scheme. it turned out they were not, and I have adapted the scheme that seems to be more accurate. no egos involved whatsoever, a mistake is pointed out, we correct and move on…
this may give you some context as to why and how I communicate the way I do.
I am naturally very friendly and cooperative with everyone, as you must have noticed by now.
Many of the people I have worked with and I myself walk barefoot through hell and back to help each other, because they know I will help them when needed and because it is the right thing to do, but when I discover that someone is dodging bullets (hehe) when legitimately formulated questions or concerns are ignored and ridiculed, then alarm bells are ringing and we cannot let this go…
this analysis requires a combination of very advanced qualities and expertise to bring it to a successful conclusion, and I fear that some of the people who play a key role in this analysis are not qualified to do so…
my 2 cents…
1 Like
I’m not current on GPS devices as used in land survey, but isn’t it so that heights are the least precise GPS data you could rely on? To me, it happened quite often that I found my self 8 m below sealevel when in reality I was just about to board a ferry.
I really miss @sluggo2u and his LIDAR data set.
1 Like
You are very welcome.
You will see, however, if you just play around with the sliders available in the Desmos link I included in my previous message to you, that the uncertainty in the number I gave you (1715 fps) is TINY — i.e. a 2 or 3 fps. You cannot get ANYWHERE NEAR 1600 fps and still have a 220ms snik-report difference.
The physics is very simple.
It’s just a right triangle ABC.
A = shooter muzzle
B = point of bullet’s closest approach to mic
C = Mic position
AB is the hypotenuse, AC, and BC are the legs
If we define the lengths of those as:
d = AC (muzzle to mic)
y = BC (bullet closest approach to mic)
h = AB (muzzle to bullet closest approach)
And
vb = average bullet velocity
vs = sound velocity
Pythagoras tells us that
h = sqrt(d2 + y2)
Bullet travels from A to B in h⁄vb seconds, and snik travels from B to C in y⁄vs seconds. So the snik time is simply:
h⁄vb + y⁄vs
The report time is simply d⁄vs
So the difference, which I call x in my Desmos graph, is simply
x = d⁄vs - (h⁄vb + y⁄vs)
which can be simplified a bit as:
x = (d-y)⁄vs - h⁄vb
We know with great accuracy that:
vs = 1152 fps
y = 1.07 feet
d = 775 (at your location) or 454 (where Crooks was) feet
h = sqrt(d2 + y2) = 775.0007
x = 220 ms
Therefore turning the equation for x around, we have:
vb = h⁄((d-y)⁄vs - x) = 775.0007 / ((775-1.07)/1152 - 0.22) = 1715.3 fps
There is NO guesswork involved here.
QED
1 Like
would not trust TMZ (if that’s the TMZ i am thinking of)
1 Like
Only two cents?
you cant get change back.
(wink)
The simulations and models here where I work, are only as good as the input.
The problem is the hidden variables, those nasty things like temperatures, dirt, surges, humidity and outdoors, wind.
(some undetermined- and volume)
So at work, I roll my eyes at the young engineers come and wave computer simulations under my nose and say, “I have proof”.
Any of the afore mention variables can alter the results. We can’t ignore them. but it does get us close.
Most scientific dudes (PhD) don’t like their ideas or theories questioned. Its good to hear you contain and move on.
and have many worded explanations like mine to say something that could be said in fewer.
sorry, but I do like your posts.
K
2 Likes