Yes I have. What does it change?
Here are other lines of sights that results in the same conclusion.
Out of curiosity, I took the liberty to input your values on that trajectory spreadsheet (just ignore the 100ft difference, all points have it, itâs leftover from after that paramount tactical video). The bullet used for the ballistic drop is that fav candidate of mine from that ammo-data spreadsheet which has the objetive of identifying ammo from the crack-thump sound and average velocity⊠Hornady 75 gr BTHP Match T2 Frontier (pretty much the same as the LE version: 75 gr BTHP T2 TAP PRECISIONÂź).
I maintain that without definitive elevation data, itâs technically impossible to determine between CrooksOnRoof and that ridiculous Vent theory. On this image below, for instance, considering the elevations are all correct, if you add 1 ft to the bleachers, then Vent is possible and CrooksRoof is not (EDIT: well, CrooksRoof would still be possible, just at a lower impact point on the rail). However, Google shows that the bleachersâs ground is 2,13 ft below podiumâs ground (yours is 1,55ft below)⊠so thereâs googleâs accuracy at play, etc⊠Another user at one point used another topo data website he had access to. But still⊠itâs trickyâŠ
Disclaimer: I agree with you 100% about Roger being dishonest. I also believe Crooks fired all 8 from the roof.
1 Like
Another point of view. A little above Crooks.
zoomed:
Trump podium have the white reflective flag on the front (in green).
Probably Trump mic support (in red).
The rail of the South bleacher (in blue).
Estimation of Trump podium floor (in orange).
Can any of you rule out the possibility that the railing of the right grandstand could have been hit with a rifle through one of the two openings in the rear two-story building?
From there a 2nd shooter could have shot past Crooks on the right.
1 Like
The sound analysis excludes a lot of possibilities.
At that location on the wall of B6 the medium error of times of arrivals for Shot 9 and 10 increases from 1.1m to 4.5m.
On the North building it increases to more than 10m.
Your sound analysis has only localized the muzzle blast.
Crooks could also have used training ammunition for the first 3 shots.
The projectiles could theoretically have been fired from the rear two-story building. Due to the distance to the microphone and the use of a very large silencer (custom-made), the muzzle blast of the second shooter could have been only 20 dB loud by the time it reached Dave Stewartâs microphone.
Could you reliably recognize a 20 dB muzzle blast on the audio recordings?
This muzzle blast would only have reached Dave Stewartâs microphone after Crookâs muzzle blast.
My first question was about whether the roof of building 6 was low enough or whether it would have blocked the trajectory.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Any gun with a silencer only works for subsonic bullets. Supersonic bullets have shocks waves that canât be silenced. On all shots, the crack from the shock wave can be heard on several audio sources.
And subsonic guns couldnât be used because it would have huge drop from gravity and drift from the wind, itâs not precise.
1 Like
Do you mean the sonic boom of the projectile?
This sonic boom would be necessary in this scenario and should therefore not be suppressed under any circumstances.
Let me explain again:
Crooks could have used only training ammunition for the first 3 shots. This would have caused his rifle to produce a muzzle blast, but his projectiles would not have caused a sonic boom.
The sonic boom would have been created by the projectiles fired from the rear two-story building. Due to the distance and the use of a very large suppressor, the associated muzzle blast would have been only 20 dB loud on Dave Stewartâs audio recordings.
Can you use your audio analysis to rule out the possibility that the muzzle blast and the sonic boom, which can be heard on the audio recording of the stage microphone, come from two different guns?
Do you have an example of a gun or prototype that can do that? Suppress the report below 20dB?
Since there is no natural need for such a suppressor due to its unwieldiness, I could not find anything on the Internet.
Theoretically, however, there should be no objection to having a suppressor with a diameter of one meter and a length of one meter built for a political assassination.
I cannot say by how much a reduction can be increased if the above dimensions are implemented.
As far as I know, there are rifles whose muzzle blast would be 130dB loud without a suppressor.
The distance to Dave Stewartâs microphone reduces the sound by around 40dB.
A normal suppressor can reduce the sound by 30dB.
The gun would have been fired in a windowless and additionally soundproofed room. This might have reduced the sound by a further 10 dB.
If an additional 30dB reduction was possible due to the very large suppressor, you would get about 20dB when the sound reaches Dave Stewartâs microphone.
Iâve been slammed lately but finally wrapped this up. Iâm not accounting for elevation but it appears that all of the injuries could be accounted for from Crooks position
7 Likes
From the B6 wall it does not fit the line of sight, and from the North building even with the supressed report the crack would be heard on sources like TMZ, source 4 and source 2 (TMX). Because these positions are behind or too much to the side of Crooks fire position there is no cracks from Crooks bullets, but thats not the case if the fire was from the North building, the crack would appear before the report from Crooks.
The muzzle cannot support that heavy supressor -and- the driver cannot see anything. So it is extremely useful. 
But I heared someting about that Germany used anti-supressor in WW1 as acoustic weapon.
1 Like
I struggle with a mathematical notation. Can you please help me?
The total pathlength is divided into lot of small segments. Initially they have the same L length, but that will change later (like a sound wave). It looks to me crazy to write dL/dL = âŠ
Thank you for the time and effort you put into this, and for sharing it. While I do not have expertise in this aspect of the investigation, and thus have no related comments, I am duly impressed with the quality and clarity of your presentation. Well done!
Does this mean that the line of sight from the rear two-story building fits?
Does this mean that you could not recognize a 20dB loud report on the audio recordings?
The sonic boom of the second shooterâs bullet should of course be audible on the audio recordings if the projectile flew close enough to the microphones.
Why would the second shooterâs supersonic crack appear before Crookâs report?
Shouldnât this simply be a timing problem?
Or are there fundamental objections?
Can you calculate that Crookâs bullet would have been too far away and a bullet from the back building would have been close enough?
I seem to remember Greg Nichols saying somewhere that the distance between Dave Stewart and Crooks was so small that the crack and report overlap so much that they canât be clearly distinguished on Stewartâs recordings.
What do you think of this statement?
This is the case with every stationary suppressor.
-
there is no technical reason why there could not be a hole to look through at this point of the suppressor.
-
depending on the size of the suppressor, aiming by hand might be impossible and could only be achieved with the help of mechanical assistance.
-
in my scenario, the gun was fired by a preset machine.
-
the main advantage would have been that the hole in the wall would have been very small because no shooter would have had to aim through it. This would have minimized the risk of being spotted.
Iâm going to sketch your scenario. First the basic scenario were crooks fire a gun alone. In black is the report and in blue is the Mach cone that produces the crack after 0.1sec.
Now your scenario is a gun fired from the back (in the small red circle) ahead in around 0.09sec before Crooks âfakeâ shot. For this scenario the gun used by crooks would have to be fired with a delay by some remote device. Then the gun from the back has a suppressed report represented in dashed black circle.
Now can you see the difference from the 2 scenarios? The Mach cone from a fire from behind (represented in yellow) is not suppressed like the report. Therefore, it will reach Ross audio before the âfakeâ report, keeping in mind that the crack from the first real scenario would not reach this audio. Since there is no audio of crack of the first bullet on Ross audio therefore this suppressed gun theory is not possible.
1 Like
I used to think that the sonic boom could only be heard from a very short distance.
Mike Bell claimed this in one of his videos from 6:51 onwards
âThe sonic boom picked up only if youâre very close to the bullet.â
The crack from shot 10 is heard on Ross audio for example.