There is no audio for this, but the shooting starts at 2:45. So, shot 9 is at 2:51 and shot 10 is at 3:01. We only see one SWAT officer in this footage, and he stays behind the white truck, not near the light pole as you indicate with your results.
And I will simply repeat what I said earlier about shot 10. You show it coming from a location right in the middle of a packed audience. There is no way that a SWAT officer was standing there!
However, thank you (and Brian) for pointing me to the interview transcript. I just read pages 144-150 of âCS-Team-Lead_Transcript_Redacted.pdfâ and found it very interesting to hear the SS counter sniper talk about what happened on the barn roof that day.
Greg
I know itâs strange to get such a location for shot 10 but I repeat how I have proceeded:
I have synchronised the audio sources as you have done by supposing that shot 1 is from the place where Crooks died. Thatâs the only hypothesis I do.
I have used only audio sources with no ambiguity on the boom times that I use in my simulation. I donât have to compute tdiff as you did by supposing that the shot comes from south barn and by supposing the ammo was 300 win which has the effect to add a bias in your simulation.
And I got a perfect convergence in a strange place so the only explanation that I see is: the first shot doesnât come from Crooks location!
Or the audio files are all corrupted in the same manner but itâs impossible âŠ
And about shot 9, I place it at (586756,4523424) and VT (on this forum) places it at (586762, 4523427) so there is about 7 m between them, not such a big distance taken into account the limited accuracy of the simulation.
At 1:03, it you look frame by frame you can see the head of a sniper running on the red carpet and just after you can hear the shot 10.
Is it possible that it was that guy who fired the shot 10?
I have used the audio of that video in my simulation.
I went back to the school, for a couple of lectures.
Well, the result should have been a quadratic function of the frequency. But there is something more. Problem: when the period of time is not exact multiple of others. It does hallucinate other ferequencies - as I formerly thought.
Crooks fired the first 3 shots with subsonic training ammunition. These projectiles had a high air resistance and were so light that they landed in the area between the two fences.
Crooksâ rifle was manipulated so that a radio signal was sent in time when he pulled the trigger. This allowed a rifle located in the rear two-story building to be fired at the right time through a very small hole in the front using a preset device.
The reports of shots fired from the rear building could have been as low as 20dB on Dave Stewartâs video recording.
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 (custom made, stationary, 1 yard diameter, 1 yard length), you would get about 20dB when the sound reaches Dave Stewartâs microphone.
In this scenario, the report comes from Crookâs weapon and the projectile that creates the sonic boom comes from another weapon.
First assume we study the same frequency. There is only one pure sine.
Convolate it with sine and cosine. We must normalize the equations to 1 squared.
We can get the angle shift.
There are four possibilities, now comes that razor for simplest way.
And there is an assumption. We must get 1 when we convolve with shifted phase sine, and there should be around zero when we convolve with shifted phase cosine. As usually within math examples, one must check the result. It seems people forgot that since they left the high school.
@sonjax6
Now comes the logical inference. We should skip the âhallucinatedâ spectral line when these conditions not hold. So now I have to check this assumption.
