I must agree with you that window 3 is very strange. When the horse goes by and up to 10 seconds before shooting you see Window 3 with a rope and the reflecting read barn.
Exactly 1 second before shooting you see that the rope is gone, and the reflection is completely different. Is this the temporary panel you are referring to?
I think this theory has been put into the red zone by Chris, because simply the window is too low, you would have the fence in the way and many people. Also, the back traced bullet does not show the origine that lowâŠ.
But I must agree with you, something is really strange with window 3.
You donât think vent 3 seems to be manipulated? I added the real picture that we should be seeingâŠ
âPanicâ cop and Stewert clear the fenceline one last time. âGet out of the wayâ âMake yourself small, broâ
Shots are fired. Stewert cam conveniently behind tree.
The lights that appear to be inside after (not the SUV) would be a signal: window pane reset, rifle on its way back up to the nest, weâre clearing out, good to go.
if you look at the totally independent and unbiased and unaltered drone footage that @rough_country_gypsy made of that building, you will clearly see that every of these vents is too low:
if you look at rogerâs heights mentioned in his last scheme, ref 884-5,
the height of the vent is 1345.140 ft high
Trumpâs ear height is at 1349.103 ft (i.e., the vent shooter should shoot UPwards), and
the bleachersâ impact is at 1348.532 ft high
so roger tries to convince everybody that:
the bullet interaction with the bleachers is 0.572 ft LOWER than Trumpâs ear, while
the vent shooter must have been shooting UPWARDS
the vent shooterâs bullet first grazes Trumpâs ear at 1349.103 ft
gravaty (sic, cfr. version 4) makes the bullet drop for 0.572 ft after grazing Trumpâs ear at 1349.103 ft and hitting the bleachersâ railing at 1348.532 ftâŠ
the point is that between Trump and the bleachers the bullet should have dropped 0.572 ft, and that is highly unlikely on this planetâŠ
shooting upwards is not the problem, the problem is that it is highly unlikely that a bullet that grazed Trumpâs ear at 1349.103 ft elevation to drop to 1348.532 ft to impact the bleachers and then continue to puncture the hydraulics of the JCB liftâŠ
I did not mention the hydraulics earlier to not divert the discussion to that point, but that is what the 1st bullet did:
it first grazed trump
then it interacted with the bleachers
then it interacted with the JCB lift.
if the vent bullet is in its downwards part of the ballistic trajectory, it would not have reached the JCB liftâŠ
Iâm sorry if you already answered this and I missed it, but did you analyze either of the other two audio channels? I think I plan to get into this issue pretty soon and see what I can figure out.
So one: all measurements are rough estimates, you know, since the FBI broke everything down immediately.
And two, we donât know what deflections occurred as a result of bullets striking objects as they moved through the air.
And three, there is a range of height, even roughly estimated, for which shots can be fired from both the top portion of the window and the vent, and the shots clear the fence and can reach many heights at the stage area, including Trumpâs ear.
The swat guy on the ground: he has to shoot upwards, from the ground, and his shot has to clear two fences and hit Crooks. It does. Possibly twice.
The distances and heights arenât the same, but would be similar situations as far as shooting up and needing to clear fences. If you want to look, he might have to be even closer to his fence then the window 3 is to its first fence.
I havenât checked yet, but his angle is surely more drastic than the 3rd window to Trumpâs earâŠand he hit Crooks just fine.
I have looked at window 3 quite a lot before, and I really couldnât find any surfaces that would cause a red reflection like that, and if reflection can be ruled out, then it must come from inside the room.
I think being able to prove that itâs not a reflection, would give a strong indication that there is something happening in that room, or that it was altered afterwards to hide something. Then again, it kind of looks like a convex glass, which would explain the weird reflections.
Have you looked at the echoes at all? Iâd love some better and more expert interpretation of what seems to me to be inexplicable from a single-shooter perspective.
These map into your frequency analysis as well, as obviously shots 1-3 have a much lower frequency signature than 4-8.
But I just canât get beyond the entirely different echo sets.
Some have suggested that itâs possible that because this camera/mic was moving that they had progressed far enough to leave one echo area and enter another.
I find this difficult to intuitively accept because sound doesnât work that wayâŠI could more readily accept it if you could see both echo sets in both shot strings, but just attenuated one vs the other.
But entirely missing? I just canât get thereâŠbut, hey, the world is a mysterious place so I remain open.
Another strange thing is that to some extent they eyeballed the cut and paste. I say that because there is a random-appearing 5-8 msec delay between channel 1 and channel 2 boom timing, and a random-appearing 9-12 msec delay between channel 1 and channel 3 boom timing. This timing ârandomnessâ is silly if done on purpose and stupid if done out of carelessness. These are the same waveforms and the start times can be consistently measured extremely accurately; if shots 4-8 donât match the spread to much less than a msec between the three microphones, that says fake.
As yet another point, the frequency spectra have wildly different peak ringing frequencies between the three microphones, even though these are on the same line from the gun. Go figure.
Well, we canât even figure out where to put a second shooter, much less a third.
If you discount Crooks, the placement of two shooters becomes easier. Acoustic data suggests one shooter enclosed and one not enclosed.
My theory is that Crooks is pure patsy and conjurerâs distraction re the shooter location(s). That is: witnssers nearby will not locate the sounds accurately and so ârememberâ Crooksâ location as the source.
I thought your chart showing the different echoes and summary conclusion that this âcanât be rightâ are right on. I know some have been trying to figure out the reflection surfaces but I havenât followed that closely.
I havenât tried to look in detail at the echo signatures and spacing, but I will be happy to give it a look.
Thanks. Iâll get in my DAW tomorrow and see if I can reproduce this. This seems like it really could hang them if thereâs basically an identical password in multiple spots.
On July 30th, one of my first hypothesis I posted something similar.
After Chris put it into the red zone because the window is too low, I gave up, but looking at your arguments, I would consider this hypothesis to be possible again. It would however debunk our back tracing bullet
I agree and welcome you taking a look. There are a million things that stink to high heaven. But if the only cop audio they release has clearly been doctored, we can definitively say a coverup is underway. And this audio does not agree with the physical world we live in.
I just want to reiterate that a vent hypothesis does not require that the gun barrel be at the vent. With a 9x scope, he could be 18 feet back of a two-inch slit and still have a 4-foot high image at the podium distance.
