Audio Analysis Is Most Consistent Two Shooters At Trump Rally

Which helps us narrow down the possible shooting locations…Besides providing cover from being seen from the parking lot, it’s entirely out of sight of both SS sniper teams while still having a clear shot at Trump. We’ll be working to resolve the audio data and echoes against this and one other possibility.

The actual enemy sniper(s) would most likely be concealed and have viable escape plan. The Pasty on the roof and exposed would be the distraction/ cover story.

Keep up Great work,
Regards,
k

forgot the quotes-first paragraph.

sorry

-k

Chris, did you finally get the make/model of the Trump’s mic and the gating characteristics of the mic and/or gating characteristics of the board the mic was feeding?

The somewhat slow sequence of shots 1-3 vrs. the rapid fire of shots 4-8 and gate recovery time could affect the audio spectrum and could account for the difference between the shots.

From a theory point of view, I would tend to believe a second shooter would have been the one who radicalized Crooks, and would have been onsite to finish the job in case Crooks failed, or to even take Crooks out if it looked like he’d be taken alive. (Dead men tell no tales.)

I also wonder if this could have been a dry run (with a possibility of “success”) to analyzes weaknesses and strengths of a future attempt.

Greg, are you aware that the police cruiser video contains three audio streams (front, passenger cabin, rear)?

2 Likes

But we know he PURCHASED the rounds used so personal plinking loads are not relevant.

Your numbers on the purchased rounds agrees exactly with what I have already posted.

But you didn’t test any 77 gr rounds. Especially OTM 77 gr rounds which are the type used for distance shooting.

How about those?

The ones you did test just confirm my analysis that IF those were the rounds used, then THERE WAS A 2nd SHOOTER for sure.

I’ve been in pro/semi pro sound equipment. I don’t know of any mic a pro would use that has compressor/limiter/gate built into the mic. Every compressor/limiter/gate I have used is a separate component in my equipment ‘rack’

2 Likes

Do you trust whoever reported that he purchased 556 v 223? With all the other bad info and lies that have been revealed, I literally don’t trust anything that has been reported.

3 Likes

We don’t really know any such thing. I know you saw a report, but the “news” organization that told you that has probably been telling a hundred lies every day for 20 years. To use Chris’ terminology, let’s put it in the yellow at best.

1 Like

It doesn’t matter whether it was 556 or 223. They both travel at the same velocities.

Clearly, they were either 556 or 223, because that is the type of gun he was using.

https://www.google.com/search?q=allegheny+arms+and+gun+works+crooks&oq=allegheny+arms+and+gun+works+crooks&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCDU2MjFqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

“Officials say Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, took his shots with an AR-style 5.56-caliber rifle…”

Yes, I’m very familiar with propaganda. I’ll believe it if the owner of the shop says it, or something like that. CNN telling me that the FBI did something is worth less than zero.

4 Likes

We don’t know which ammo he used. If he had multiple 30 round mags, then a box of 50 won’t fill two of them.

most likely but we don’t know for sure.
all it takes at the most, is a barrel, bolt, and magazine to change calibers…

Yes but they were either 5.56 NATO or 223 Rem rounds, because that’s what the gun is chambered in.

We’re dealing in MOST LIKELY scenarios here. Not fantasies.

There is ABSOLUTELY zero evidence that it was anything OTHER than 5.56 or 223 and we have NUMEROUS sources saying it WAS a 556 AR-16. So what’s your point?

Absolutely. I agree. But Chris had suggested their was onboard gating or limiting on the mic, which is why I asked about both to see if he got this settled.

Did you see anywhere on the tread or in videos where the mic/board/effects rack info was identifed? I can’t find anything on it.

Hey @greg_n here is the solution for the bullet sonic boom (crack) time.

Positions:

M – muzzle position;

1 - bullet location where sonic boom is emitted;

2 – receiver;

B – perpendicular position of bullet trajectory (M:3) relative to position 2;

3 – bullet location when sonic boom is received on 2;

Deduction:

Eq. 1 and Eq. 2, define the position and velocity at position 1 using kinematics equations.

Assuming a constant deacceleration will be good assumption based on my simulations of ballistic calculators. I had calculated the reduction of speed and estimate a medium deacceleration.

Eq. 3: is the sonic boom distance D2 to the receiver (1:3).

Eq. 4: the right triangle 123 is similar to the right triangle 1B2 therefore the sides and hypotenuse are proportional.

Eq. 5: Isolating t2 from Eq 4.

Eq. 6: Applying Pythagoras on the right triangle 1B2 and using Eq.5 and Eq.3.

Eq. 7: rewriting Eq. 6

Eq. 8: substituting Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 on Eq. 7

Eq. 9: assuming a=0 from simplified model and isolation t1 in Eq 8.

Eq. 10: Crack time is the sum of the time of bullet from M to 1 and time of sound from 1 to 2.

Eq. 11: Applying Pythagoras on the right triangle MB3 converting distance to time for the sound of the report from M to 2.

Eq. 12: Simplified solution time difference (crack – report) for a=0. Derived from Eq. 9, Eq. 10, Eq. 11, Eq. 5, Eq. 1, Eq. 2.

For the complete solution with deacceleration depends on solving Eq. 08 witch not solvable by radicals, so I used newtons method. For that I started the method at the time from equation 9.

After finding the solution I compared the simplified solution for Trump position using medium velocity and the complete solution with deacceleration. I conclude that using the medium velocity the simplified solution one (Eq. 12) is almost the same result. :grinning: :grinning:

Plotting the solution in the line fire, I manage to create a chart representing the time differential of crack and report. Where Stew was the probable time differential is 0.03s.


(edit) The lines in the chart are isolines where the time differential is the same. For example, at Trump position is around 0.22s but for someone on the North-East part of the middle bleacher would be around 0.17s.

4 Likes

Last I counted there were over 80 calibers used in the AR platform.

1 Like

This is NEW analysis built on what I did in my previous post.

To refine and derive how close those first three shots were to Trump’s microphone:

vs = speed of sound
vb = average speed of bullet
d = distance from muzzle to microphone
dc = distance from muzzle to bullet closest point
ε = distance from bullet to microphone at closest point
treport = time of report arrival at mic
tsnik = time of snik arrival at mic
t0 = time of shot
Δt = treport - tsnik

d = vs x (treport - t0) => treport = dvs + t0

dc = (d2 + ε2)0.5

tsnik = dcvb + εvs + t0

So Δt = dvs - (dcvb + εvs) = (d - ε)vs - dcvb

As ε increases, Δt decreases. I plotted this on Desmos for anyone who wants to look and play around with.

The assumptions all calculated accurately in my previous post are:

  • Distance shooter to mic d = 454 ft
  • Velocity of sound vs = 1152 fps
  • Average bullet velocity vb = 2644 fps (assuming a 77gr OTM bullet)

If you play around with the bullet velocity slider in the Desmos plot, you’ll see immediately that the ONLY average bullet velocities that make that first shot come close enough to the mic to have hit Trump, but not closer than he actually was, and still yield a 220ms snik-report (Δt) interval, are between roughly 2620 and 2644 fps.

The fact that the snik-report (Δt) time of the 1st shot was the largest is also clear proof that it was the CLOSEST shot to the microphone (and therefore to Donald Trump), which makes sense, because that is the only one that hit him.

The other shots produced snik-report intervals (Δt) that were 5 to 10ms SHORTER.

The measured snik-report (Δt) intervals of 220ms, 215ms, and 209ms for the first three shots imply that those three bullets passed at the following distances from Trump’s microphone:

  • 2.75 ft
  • 8 ft
  • 15.25 ft

Does anyone have an accurate estimate of how far Trump’s ear was from the microphone???

4 Likes

that’s consistent and very realistic with how a 5.56 round fired from a 16" AR-15 barrel performs in real life testing

Do you trust the source of the that info. Remember, it is very likely the same source that stated he carried the 5’ ladder to the site.

It doesn’t matter a whole lot difference between 223/556, as long as we assume the same rifle fired all 8 shots… but, as we’re seeing in this citizens investigation, it’s highly unlikely all 8 shots came from the same rifle. This is where things begin to fall apart, because now we’re dealing with yet another unknown variable. I haven’t gone deep into the data, others are doing a great job of that, but there is about 100-150 fps difference in velocity between 223 & 556.

WRT other comments on suppressed rifle, I suppose I could borrow a friends 308 and put a suppressor on it, but I don’t believe he has any subsonic ammo, and it would be a crap shoot if it would even cycle properly.

2 Likes