Did you also notice the meticulous analysis by @offtheback?
1 Like
Hi Tibbs,
And welcome to the club!
Yes, like we say, you can take every video that has been officially released and when you get to the interesting part of the video (10 seconds before shooting) everything magically is blurred away… And frankly speaking, we have never found a video where you clearly see Crooks shooting that first shot. Every time when you would be able to see smoke coming out of the gun, some obstacle is “coincidentally” in the way.
1 Like
thank you for pointing me to his analysis!
I was not aware of his posts.
on first view, they match very well indeed with my view on this matter!
and the following really made my (early 
) day:
yet another example of elevating the outcome of a model/analysis to religious heights without corroborated evidence!
this is why I asked in an earlier post where that .220 ms value comes from and which in puts are used to come to that particular value…
as soon as I know this, I can draw circles on my kml files that indicate which delay would match which distances…
the only comment/remark/criticism that I have gotten on the model I presented here where (at least) the first 3 shots were fired from the highest AGR building at that parking, is that that distance would not match the 220 ms, so as soon as I know how exactly that value is calculated I can determine whether it is a valid comment/concern/criticism or not…
Please first read all post for them containing much surprise.
edit: again meant for @howdoiknowthisinfo
yes, will do.
now I went to his replies (assuming it is a he). will go through the details later…
thanks again for pointing me at this information!
it is really surprising to me that there are so many people who come with a view which is very similar to mine and that this view is not considered more seriously…
as I stated earlier, the approach for this analysis should be as follows:
- several independent groups look at their view on this matter
- each group does what they want and does not hinder the other
- if some tools are developed in one group, they can be used by the other group, and if these get corrected/updated/upgraded/… the new version is shared with all groups
what we see now is that a certain (not so hidden) agenda is pushed such that as many people as possible abandon their views and go for the view that is being pushed…
that pulling away from investigating other views and pushing of a single view is highly suspicious and cannot lead to any other conclusion than that there is a (not so) hidden agenda that has certain interests to protect, and these interests are far from the truth…
2 Likes
Wow @offtheback. I have been asking for this analysis for 3 weeks. Your comment is very underrated. Spectral analysis can tell a lot. This opens another chapter in this investigation!!!
Now I have more questions:
1- The frequency from the 1-3 is different from the 5-8. That maybe is caused by a different gun with different barrel length that causes different muzzle velocity that will result in different crack report times, which is not the case. Could it be possible to have different muzzle velocities result in the same crack-report time?
2- The answer of question 1 would be yes if it came from different locations. But we know also from @greg_n TDOA study that the shoots came from the same place.
So how different guns come from the same place with less then 1m distance?
3 - Could the different frequencies be caused by attenuation of lower frequencies due to refraction of some wall or roof?
4- If it came from a vent (@roger-knight study) could it be caused by the muzzle been in different distances from the vent?
5-Is there a direct correlation of sound frequency from the report and muzzle speed? Any technical study on that?
6- @offtheback can you do the spectral analysis of the crack sound from Trump mic?
Theoretically if the speed is different would result in different frequencies also.
According to this study: “Acoustic gunshot signals exhibit significant variation according to the azimuth.” routh_maher_asa_0516.pdf (montana.edu)
This would explain different frequencies for source 6 but not for Trump mic.
@offtheback can you resume your study by a table of frequency by shoot number and by source?
3 Likes
this is such a great picture!
thanks for that!
if you look at the higher roof near the pole that holds up the wires, that would be the perfect hiding spot to shoot at Trump and the other victims…
nobody would be able to distinguish with the naked eye activity at that location on that roof!
add to that a suppressed rifle that takes away muzzle flash, and it is not almost invisible what happens there.
and as soon as the shots get fired, the phones and cameras turn away or down, such that the high roofman can leave that roof unnoticed…
he only needs a couple of seconds to get off that roof…
so, we have to look for footage looking at that roof from this angle to find out how the shooter (provided that he shot from this roof) got away with/from it…
1 Like
Here is one study on the methodology for extracting the gunshot signal.
Identification of shockwave and muzzle blast in a gunshot signal using frequency analysis techniques | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore
2 Likes
thanks!
while reading this type of articles, one has to keep in mind that there are several possibilities:
- non-suppressed gun, supersonic ammunition, short barrel: muzzle flash is visible, explosion can be heard, bullet breaks through sound barrier
- same as 1, longer barrel: less/no muzzle flash
- non-suppressed gun, subsonic ammunition, short barrel: muzzle flash may be seen, explosion can be heard, bullet does not break through sound barrier
- same as 3, longer barrel: same, but muzzle flash is less likely
- suppressed gun, supersonic ammunition: muzzle flash is very unlikely, explosion is more a poof than a bang, bullet breaks through sound barrier
- suppressed gun, subsonic ammunition: muzzle flash is very unlikely, explosion is not heard, bullet does not break through sound barrier
1 Like
I am looking at the second toll building behind Crooks and wondering if the vents over there could be used to fire? Instead of laying on the hot roof?
1 Like
I will look into it and let you know
Yeah and she has been bugging me for a long time. Not hard to get a make on her if one knows how. I kept thinking why is she out there?? Thanks been looking for that picture.
the SWAT team had been activated on higher alert already 6-7 minutes before the first shots were fired…
given that they were standing next to the tents and did not want to draw too much attention to their presence to keep the general public under control, it would make sense that they sent out one of them to go have a look.
in the bodycam footage it is clear that immediately after the 1st shot he positioned himself, took aim by the 3rd shot and fired immediately after the burst of 5 went off, so his response time was about 4 seconds…
I think such a response time is fairly quick when starting from walking around to hitting the man on the roof and/or his rifle…
and then, about 7-9 seconds later he looks through his scope to assess the damage, and here, I think he shot the 10th round to finish the man off.
I do not think the 10th shot came from any of the barn snipers as the damage to the body would have been considerably worse if he had been hit with a sniper rifle round (typically a .300 winchester magnum), and they were using suppressed rifles, and that round would likely have been subsonic…
this may seem many assumptions in 1 sentence, but it is clear they had suppressors on their sniper rifles and I believe that snipers 1 and 2 (the ones that had their line of sight hindered by the tree) returned fire almost immediately after the first round came in
I must admit that the following picture is more crooksy than the last picture
I never noticed it before, but it is highly unlikely that the middle picture was shot on that roof as there is some grass to be seen near his neck…
so, about this middle picture, the question becomes: why did that man suffer this damage?
1 Like
It doesn’t look like there’s much on the south side of that building. There’s a good chance the electric lines would also be in the way. The rooftop would probably be the best option for that building. Here’s some of my drone footage.
I suspect it was taken after he was removed from the roof and being body bagged. Or, if they bagged him on the roof once they got him to the ground someone wanted pictures and they unzipped him for the photo shoot. It looks like someone’s holding his head up for the photo. No doubt in my mind, it’s the same guy from the roof (who I believe to be Crooks).
1 Like
There are no “input parameters” for the 220ms. It is a direct MEASUREMENT of reality. See my post:
Which contains the video and the exact timings etc.
I also showed this visually in my audio software in this post
No, it’s the trees in the background; the photo has simply been cropped and rotated 90 degrees.
4 Likes
I don’t expect it to make much of a difference, but I would like to update my TDOA model to use more accurate elevation data for the recording sources and gunshot locations. Would someone here be able to provide lat/lon/altitude data for:
- “Ross!” recording (PP source # 5?)
- “He’s got a gun” along fence (PP source #2)
- Dayve Stewert (PP source #6)
- Police cruiser that pulled up to entrance of AGR 6
- Podium microphone
- shooter’s position on roof of AGR 6
- Alternate shooter position: AGR 6 wall vent
- Grass area between North bleacher and inner fence (shot 9)
- Hercules 1 position on top of South Barn
If you don’t have accurate lat/lon data, that’s fine, I’m mostly interested in the altitudes since I think I’ve already got accurate lat/lon in my model now.
Hi Tibbs,
You know, I have been looking for the original video from the owner, who I call the guy with the “red checkered shirt” see my post below. Does anybody know this guy or the guy with the big black hat? We absolutely need original videos taken by the people who were at the rally. All hands-on deck: Does anybody know red checkered shirt guy? We need his original video!!!
