Is it technically possible to produce cartridges (custom made) whose muzzle blast would be just as loud as normal ammunition, but with a subsonic bullet that would only travel 50 meters?
why do you think blanks were fired?
Corey Comperatore did not die from a blank, and I am sure that David Dutch and James Copenhaver did not get injured by a blank eitherâŠ
That JCB hydraulic telehandler/lift did not get damaged by a blank eitherâŠ
Not mentioning Trump intentionally.
1 Like
(Our police used rubber bullets against the mass demonstration. It was almost twenty years ago. Human eyes are not bulletproof.)
true, and the box that SgtRaven showed also clearly mentions that blanks are dangerous at close rangeâŠ
it all depends on where the person gets hit whether something is lethal or causes injuries or notâŠ
1 Like
If the audio analysis is correct and Crooks fired 8 times, there can only have been a second shooter if Crooks fired blanks and the second shooter fired live ammunition.
Theoretically, it could be possible that the second shooter fired through a hole in the front of the rear two-story building.
The muzzle blast there would have been about 130dB loud.
Up to the first microphone (Dave Stewart 120m away) the sound would have been about 40dB quieter.
With a normal silencer, a reduction of 30dB can be achieved. With a custom-made silencer with a diameter of 1 meter and a length of 1 meter, perhaps twice as much would be possible. To be honest, thatâs just a guess. As there is no need for such a monstrosity, I couldnât find anything on the Internet. Perhaps someone here could make a rough calculation.
Then it would already be a reduction of 40dB + 60dB to just 30dB.
Furthermore, a reduction should result from the fact that the rifle was in a windowless and perhaps additionally insulated room.
This could perhaps have led to a reduction of 10dB (also just a guess).
This means that the second shooterâs muzzle blast when it reached Dave Stewartâs microphone was perhaps only 20dB loud.
Could such a soft bang still be detected on the audio recordings?
I didnât get it. Crooks climbs on the roof to fire blanks?
- No rangefinder needed for blanks.
- Was it a drill?
2 Likes
In my opinion, Crookâs motivation is still unclear.
His SAT score proves that he was not a fool, but highly gifted.
Thatâs why I think itâs impossible that he acted alone and thought that he could run across 4 roofs for 30 seconds in broad daylight and then lie on a roof for 2 minutes and then still have the opportunity to shoot at Trump.
The version that he was persuaded that he was part of a training exercise is also impossible in my opinion, because the risk that he would have told other people about it would have been too great.
He could have been convinced that he was getting enough help from insiders and therefore had a high probability of getting the opportunity to fire shots at Trump.
But what would such persuasion have looked like? It would be nice if a supporter of this variant would describe it in detail.
In my opinion, he was probably a mind-control victim. Perhaps a drug like Burundanga was used. That could explain why his body was left there overnight. The next day, such drugs might have been undetectable.
And a mind-control victim doesnât refuse to shoot blanks.
I think you are mixing a couple of thingsâŠ
- blanks would not have long-distance casualties
- a gun can fire subsonic and supersonic ammunition: the subsonic bullet does not crash the sound barrier, the supersonic ammunition causes breaks through the sound barrier, and this is a very loud bang
- a gun can have a suppressor or not. a suppressed gun reduces the sound of the explosion of firing the gun, where the explosion is audible when shooting a non-suppressed gun
- whether there is a muzzle blast or not depends on the amount of powder that was used and the length of the barrel. shorter guns tend to have more intense muzzle blasts than longer barrelled weapons
- the muzzle flash can be suppressed too
about the audio analysis: I am not yet convinced about the correctness of these sound analysesâŠ
this is my point of view:
- the first 3 shots were fired by someone else than crooks
- these shots were imho fired from behind crooks
- if crooks fired any rounds, he used the rifle (DPMS A-15, 2013) that was recovered from the roof with a magazine that contained exactly 5 cartridges, and he fired these in quick succession using a jitter finger technique trained by playing computer games
- the reason why I state that he would have used a magazine with exactly 5 rounds is because he stopped the rapid fire after 5 rounds were fired
- if crooks did not fire these rounds, these were shot by the same shooter as the first 3 rounds, but from my perspective using a different rifle than for the first 3 rounds
so, it is perfectly possible that crooks just had a gun on that roof without having shot a single round, not even needing any blanksâŠ
I think the following scenario was followed:
- crooks had to be on that roof a bit before 18:10, and he had been running late for whatever reason
- as he was running late, he jogged on the roofs of the AGR site to his nightly resting place
- he was in place at the right time, such that the real shooter could fire the first 3 rounds
- if crooks fired any rounds, he simply had to wait until the first shots were fired and then he could empty his rifleâŠ
I am not specialized in audio levels, but I do not think the sound analysts focus much on the dB-levels of what they studyâŠ
1 Like
My Audio Analysis Wrapup
I posted earlier today my findings after running a minimization routine that assumed Crooks took shots 4-8, and then converged on a location for shots 1-3 relative to this. The result was a quite exact fit for these 40 data points, with shots 1-3 taken 2 feet in front of shots 4-8. This is my postscript to that post, but I think everything is a wrap on the âshots firedâ side, with the remaining questions on the side of why this was allowed to happen.
I showed a graph earlier with how neatly the stationary sources agreed on locations for the two shot groups. I repeat that here, but add in the police cruiser audio that has always been suspect in my mind. Despite being in a protected environment with no screaming and virtually no noise and so easy to measure, it is at odds with these other five sources, and does not converge to the same solution. In fact, the way it doesnât converge also makes no sense, with random-seeming significant lacks of fit at shots 1, 2, 3, and 5:
My explanation for why the police cruiser audio doesnât converge along with the rest is that itâs fake. The follow-up question as to why it was faked is what I donât have an explanation for, particularly if there was no second shooter. Maybe âtheyâ had to edit out a section of the video where something happened in front of building 6 that was picked up on the mic, and they had to replace the reports along with a clip of the blank wall. Who knows, this remains a mystery.
Everything else on the audio analysis is solved in my mind.
Yeah, we could use the audio solution to better place the moving sources, but I donât know why we need to. They are close enough.
One other thing this does solve. Shots 1-3 sound different from shots 4-8 because Crooks sat up and back, which vastly changed how the reports interacted with the metal roof (police cruiser be damned) and where the last five casings would fall.
I have not checked the work of @vt1 and @greg_n for shots 9 and 10 and have no reason to. My motivation has been to explain the discrepancies between shots 1-3 and 4-8, and the answer is satisfactory because it is clean. Both co-investigators resolve the positions of those last two shots to the most likely locations for those shots (where government snipers are seen aiming at Crooks), when shots 1-8 come from the area of Crooks. As both investigators have been explaining to people, this rules out a far-away sniperâs nest.
I know a lot of folks have put a lot of energy into trying to find a second shooter. The firing solution and location were a source of constant debate because these werenât forthcoming. Turns out Occamâs Razor wins again. One guy tried to assassinate Trump, and fired real bullets, and was killed before he could tell his story. I am sure that story would have been interesting.
If people have more questions for me, I am happy to answer, but the audio analysis seems done.
Cheers.
4 Likes
The planning and execution that crooks did on July 13 were the actions of a clever person, but they were not the actions of a sane and sober person. It is true that US mainstream media has been preaching that Trump is an âexistential threat to democracyâ for years now, so thatâs got to have a detrimental effect, but no sane American is going to climb up onto a roof and shoot at Trump, or anyone else for that matter.
I have interacted with several mentally ill people over the years, and that has given me a good understanding of what mental illness looks like in real life. It is a sad situation, but a common one, unfortunately. As discussed in this article, Crooks was at the right age for mental illness to derail his thoughts. While I have not observed violence in the cases Iâve personally witnessed, I can certainly see how things could take a violent turn.
So, I realize itâs not as glamorous as other scenarios, but what I believe most likely happened that day is that a clever but unhinged young man figured out a way to take out President Trump, and he acted alone. (My one caveat to this conclusion is that crooks did not have any social media presence. Really? Come on, thatâs hard to believe. So, I still keep an open mind for that reason.)
However, Iâm also not closing the door on other conspiracy theories. There were too many âmistakesâ by Secret Service that day for us to believe it was mere oversight or incompetence on their part. DOJ and SS will obviously not investigate themselves, so our only hope is for Congress to get to the bottom of what happened and for the new Trump administration to make drastic changes to SS under executive authority. Secret Service made it so easy for Crooks to get into position that it looks like they took a âhands offâ attitude. I canât say whether it was on purpose or not, but it certainly looks like it was on purpose. So, regardless of whether it was incompetence or collusion, the people responsible for this need to be fired. We probably canât lock them up, since intent canât be proven, but they at least need to be fired for incompetence. If they are wise, they will quit or retire before Trump takes office in January.
3 Likes
To be clear to others, @vt1 has come to the same conclusions that I did for shots 1-9, using audio timestamps provided by @offtheback , not my data set. So, itâs helpful to have that independent corroboration.
@vt1, you didnât say which sound recorders you used in your analysis. Please clarify.
2 Likes
I also want to be clear that my results agree with @greg_n and @vt1 , which both used different approaches than I did (although @vt1 used my shot times and I used his microphone positions).
The only difference is that I allowed the two shot groups to converge to different locations, and minimized the arrival time error as a group. I still got Crooksâ location for both shot groups, with the caveat that he moved two feet between the shot groups.
3 Likes
Using the same data sources, but an independent approach to analysis, @offtheback came to the same conclusion that I did for the first eight shots. Shots 1-8 were fired from basically the same location.
I agree that the waveform analysis of Cruiser shots 1-8 shows that all 8 shots are oddly similar, but I did not see any inconsistency in the TDOA data for the cruiser. For my model, it fit in very well with the other six recorders, so I never had a reason to call it into question or discard it. To provide examples, look at the gray line on Shot 6 and Shot 9, below, and you will see that it simply agrees with what the other recorders show. If the Cruiser was edited to have âfakeâ gunshot data, what was the purpose? What did it achieve? Nothing, in my view. And thatâs why I donât consider it to be suspicious.
1 Like
We donât know what the cruiser alterations were supposed to achieve. But your charts only show a curve for podium vs. cruiserâwhich is only going to confirm whatever you pick as a seed location for the shots, as you are using one of the shots to figure out alignment between the tracks and âtheyâ more or less tried to replicate all the podium spacings in the cruiser audio.
Because I let the other sources place TWO shot locations relative to each other such that TOA errors are minimized for all sources and all shots, Cruiser is conspicuous because it wonât go along with the group.
So you gotta chooseâfive other sources that all agree or one late-released police video that is unlike the other sources in all respects. You donât need to know why they did it to say they did it.
1 Like
Okay. Iâll let you have the last word on this, while still keeping in mind that the cruiser microphones were inside the vehicle as opposed to being exposed to the air. In any case, I feel like Iâve made my point.
2 Likes
I applied some more effort on those audio filters and I got a bit more from that exchange on Dayveâs video. Iâve been using high-pass, low-pass, a compressor, 15-band equalizer, gain, noise reduction,etcâŠ
07:08 - Cammoshorts turns corner of AGR6
07:15 - âsomethingâ (cammoshorts summons Greg, pointing a direction)
07:19 - Cammoshorts: HeyâŠ
07:20 - Cammoshorts: GregâŠ
07:21-22 - Someone 1: unintelligible Greg
07:22-23 - CammoShorts: He was with us, unintelligible
07:24 - Dayve Stewert interruption
07:25 - Dayve Stewert interruption
07:26 - Cammoshorts: Top or down?
07:29 - Nicol: I wasnât there (or I was in there)
07:32 - Nicol: Greg Nicol: First Burst of shooting (fence rattle) donât/wonât stop shootingâŠ
07:35 - Someone 2: Did you see him hit?
07:36 - Someone 3: Yeah, did that happen?
I would like to be clear about Someone 1 and that âhe was with usâ said by cammoshorts with an emphasys on the âwithâ: the meaning is not yet clear and this is assuming I understood the voices correctly. Whoever âwas with usâ could be a reference to either GregNicol or Crooks. If it was about Crooks, it could be about him having deceived them while they were looking for him, or if it was meant to reference Nicol, it could be about him being on that door 13 that @vegaspatriot mentions. The deeper and faint voice of Someone-1 appears to be saying âWhere were you Greg?â, but I canât hear a âwhereâ and the âwere youâ appears to be there, and it does fit.
Letâs assume Someone1 is BeardUndercover and think possible alternativesâŠ
a) Beard asks âWhere were you, Greg?â, and Cammoshorts replies to Beard about Gregâs location, going over what happened. âHe was with usâ. From the audio, it does appear that is the case, but Iâm trying to improve the clarity on Beardâs voice, itâs deeper and itâs very faint.
b) Beard asks âWhere were you Gregâ, and Cammoshorts cuts in, ignores Beardâs question and tells Greg that Crooks was with them (cammo and beard), which could indicate that Crooks deceived them somehow. I donât believe it could indicate they had Crookâs trail, because then it would be âwe were with/on himâ, instead of âhe was with usâ.
c) what else?
Keep in mind beard and cammo were there looking for Crooks for at least about 9 minutes if they were the 2 undercover officers brought in from Sheetz, and even longer if they were already there. At 18:08 one of them probably is the person walking north on the east side of AGR while Crooks is already on the roof. I believe Cammo and Beard were both walking south to north at around 18:05 to 18:09, one on the west side, another on the east side, which is consistent with them both appearing on Grimleyâs video on the west side on the northern most building, just before the shooting.
Iâve been changing parameters on the filters to get better clarity (Iâve been using ShotCut first, since I donât like Audacity and I donât want to install something else. Then after some overall parameters gives good results I try it out on Audacity.
6 Likes
I think youâre on a good track with the lowpassing and stuff like that. That was what I was trying to do in my DAW, but I found I was making it less intelligible. Do you have an original WAV that covers just the critical section? I just had an idea thatâs cheap to try and maybe effective (Iâll send it to multiple audio recovery people on Fiverr).
1 Like
Interesting analysis!
Since I havenât gotten to that portion of the timeline in my timeline analysis yet, have you seen a Butler Township officer in the property at the same time as the 2 potential PSP undercover LEOs? Iâm trying to reconcile all related evidence.
- The BeC AAR timeline map shows 1 marked and 1 unmarked LE vehicle at the northeast point of the AGR property.
- A few bodycam videos reveal a black vehicle, likely unmarked, and a Butler Twp vehicle.
- The two potential PSP undercover LEOs likely drove from Sheetz in the black vehicle.
- That would leave a Butler Twp LEO to account for.
If the 2 PSP LEOs met Nicol outside of Door 13, I wonder where the Butler Twp LEO went.
The BeC AAR timeline map shows 1 marked and 1 unmarked LE vehicle at the northeast point of the AGR property. These two MV enter at 19:06pm: not at 18:06 just before the shooting starts.
IF Nicol even met the 2 LEOs outside of Door 13,
why did he have to tell them âCrooks is on the fairgrounds side of the AGR complexâ?
As they were already on on the fairgrounds side of the AGR complex and he was last seen just 35 meters away from where they supposedly were meeting/standing.???
So it must have been door 9: No cant be that either; its the door nobody came out of till 18:13 when Nicol emerges.
1 Like
This is good detective work keep it up
07:22-23 - CammoShorts: He was with us⊠waiting with baited breath for more
Any luck with the cruzer audio it was close to them too?