Roger
I wish I could take credit for all of what you reference, but that was not me. I haven’t done any kinds of calculations. I was just commenting on what the drone elevations were according to Gary.
1 Like
I just calculated the ratio from one chart I found. I took the average of the muzzle velocity and velocity at 150 yards, and divided by muzzle velocity. Back of the envelope stuff. I figure if we don’t know the muzzle velocity, and it could be anywhere from 2800 to 3200 fps, rough approximations are going to be good enough.
We thank you for drawing our attention to this video. The reason why I gave you such a detailed answer is because Gary already got 15K views in 1 day, so I am sure somebody is going to call us out on this topic and we will simply be able to point to this answer 
2 Likes
Hi VT,
I understand what you are referring to.
We don’t have a perfect top view photo, especially the total Butler ground. I am using the below picture I got from Google Maps which is a very good basis. Shortly after I posted how to put together the Trump rally footprint and aligning it with the Google Maps dirt paths, 3 days later Google Maps deleted that photo and put one without them. If you don’t believe me go back in history on Google Earth or read this post:
I see you were the one who gave me that tip about the history button in Google Earth 
One idea that came to my mind to solve this problem of the slight top view offsets, would be to ask @rough_country_gypsy again to go out and take a perfectly centered top view of the entire butler grounds. He could use the tall lamps to orient the drone, when the poles are not in sight would mean that he is perfectly “top view”. The higher the better. But not so heigh that rough_country_gypsy loses his drone. 
As you know rough_country_gypsy already gave us the perfect front view of building 6 with his drone of which we are all so grateful for. Once again thank you gypsy!
Or a perfect top view from building 6, a perfect top view from the middle grounds and a perfect top view from the stage position. Maybe somebody could then help us put together a very accurate top view reference basis to work with.
1 Like
Average can mean almost anything, if we know only the first and last number (numerical value).
Simplified text books say the force due to air drag is proportional to either the first or second power of the speed. But this is because ‘we’ can solve that simplified differential equation. (‘we’=there is someone) The reality is (1) something in between, (2) may change with velocity, (3) depend on the ‘overall’ shape and the microscopic shape of the flying object (e.g. coarse graining surface or polished mirror).
Additional problem that the dimension must be the same at both sides of equation. One side is force, other side is speed at fractional power. What the hell is going on? This problem violates our principles. Annoying.
(However, Caltec professor Carroll had mentioned a strange thing called emergence. I guess it is some sort of it. But that leads to a weird mathematical problem. I have to look for its name. Traditionally you manipulate the two sides of eq. in same way, e.g. you add 5 to both sides etc.)
The nerd is partially awakened. I got to wondering where that third term came from (I don’t remember caring about whether they are called terms or factors; but “factor” is used when you have values multiplied together). Anyway, after trying to find it on the internet and staring at right triangles, I went back to calculus principles and I think I got it figured out.
IF you assume the bullet velocity is constant, solving for the time the “snick” sound takes to get to a recording device is a fairly straightforward second semester calculus problem. You draw a diagram assuming the recording device will pick up the snick the bullet made just BEFORE it came to the closest point to the recording device. So you are dividing the distance the bullet travels, b, into two pieces, b-q and q. When the bullet has traveled distance b-q, its shockwave starts its travel to the microphone.
So I took the first derivative of the travel time with respect to the distance
q. Then I set that first derivative to 0, solved for q, and then found the total time, after many scratched out mistakes. It does match your equation.
The problem is, this method only works if the bullet velocity is constant. As it is, you would just about have to do it numerically, which isn’t that hard these days. However, when I put in sample values of speed of sound = 1150 fps, bullet velocity = 3000 fps and h = 50 feet, that third term (or factor) of the equation is less than one millisecond. Might as well ignore that third term and use the average velocity of the bullet for the second term, considering we don’t even know the actual speed of the bullets.
3 Likes
I could do it once, but that’s part of the 80% of the math that I’ve almost completely forgotten. Unlike the calculus exercise I just did, I don’t even have the desire to try to resurrect that knowledge.
1 Like
An EU agency blocked me too at the .st site for supposed copyright infringement by Sci-Hub. That could mean that EU already has the Great Firewall in place, just like the evil Chinese. It will get interesting if they soon also block NIH/Pubmed content… You can still get the above cited article here.
2 Likes
thanks for the link!
yes, that firewall is in place already…
many sites in the US and the UK are not accessible from the EU countries “due to copyright infringements” and other censorship related claims…
1 Like
Since sci-hub.st and sci-hub.se are fully blocked, the blocking could still be explained by DNS manipulation. And it is: if I use the google nameserver 8.8.8.8, sci-hub.se and .st are freely accessible and hence the EU still simply forces the telco providers to falsify DNS entries.
I can access both. Interesting, there is also sci-hub.ru
I cannot recognize the next one is chinese or japanese.
Sonja, here are three posts from earlier in this thread where @vt1 explains how the formula was derived and simplified:
401 447 451
You are correct that that velocity is not being modeled perfectly. Ideally, I would prefer to have a more complex equation where I could use the muzzle velocity and ballistic coefficient published by the ammunition manufacturer to compute a more precise snick-boom time. If someone would like to derive that or has seen it published in a paper, I would be happy to implement that in the model.
True, but even small changes can make a difference when working with these velocities and geometries. For example, consider shot 10 being recorded by the podium mic. We can’t hear the boom for that, so it needed to be calculated. If I use all three terms, I get 13.4 ms for the snick-boom difference. If I ignore the third term, I get 10.4. That’s quite significant. Milliseconds matter. My computation for Shot 10 was way off until I incorporated those small differences.
1 Like
I will see if I can fit it into my schedule (no promises). The next few weeks I’m crazy busy.
Here’s where I’m at 40+ days after the attempt and dodging rabbit holes.
-
Crooks had help with the planning and getting on the building.
-
It’s Crooks on the roof.
-
Crooks definitely fired at Trump.
-
Although incomprehensible… Evidence points to Crooks most likely being the lone gunman.
-
Crooks seen in several places around the venue results from the entire area being so small.
-
There is no Crooks clothing conspiracy. Review the videos and count how many people are wearing black shorts or blue jeans. (people see what they want to see)
-
The vent is the most logical spot for the 2nd shooter but it will never be able to be convincingly proven, and maybe it shouldn’t be.
-
I admire @howdoiknowthisinfo passion and diligence for his hypothesis, and even though it makes perfect sense (theoretically) unless someone produces a picture of a shooter on that roof (or any other roof of the AGR building), I’ll never be convinced another shooter had the
to attempt it (even Jason Bourne). -
I don’t believe a professional would’ve missed Trump on the first shot regardless of the elements and if they did, they would’ve connected with the 2nd shot.
3 Likes
ANALYSIS OF SOURCE FOUR SIGNATURES/ECHOES
@cmartenson, I took a look at the Source 4 audio, where your spectragram showed visible differences in frequency and echoes between the first group of 3 shots and the second group of 5 shots. There is a lot of talking/screaming and shuffling going on, which I have tried to suppress so that we can see the shot signatures. Most of this background noise is luckily below 200 Hz and above 800 Hz, and there is significant energy for the gun signature between 250 Hz and 550 Hz (there is energy elsewhere, but most of the energy is here).
I applied a mild high-pass filter with a 250 Hz corner frequency. I didn’t want to make this a strong filter because the noise below this frequency isn’t severe and I didn’t want to perturb the shot waveforms.
There is a LOT more noise at high frequencies, and by placing the corner frequency at 800 Hz, there shouldn’t be significant distortions in the range of interest. I applied a fairly strong 24 dB/decade low-pass filter to cut this noise.
Here is one example for the region around a shot, before and after filtering. There is still some noise, but it isn’t significantly masking the shot and echo signatures that I wanted to look at.
I cut out and aligned all eight shots based on the large, first negative pressure waves (mainly because it is hard to precisely place the preceding pressure peaks on shots 1-3). I aligned them top to bottom in the figure below, which I have annotated and marked with colored boxes.
SHOTS 1-3: These shots sound muffled for several reasons (the darker red overlay boxes are the “meat” of the primary response). They each attenuate to a fairly low level within 10 ms. But interestingly, each shot is followed by an almost immediate echo (what I would consider multipath off of a fairly close surface) within 15 to 18 ms. This is only a 20-foot increase in path distance to the microphone, which means something fairly close to the gun barrel (10-15 ft?) reflected a large portion of the initial gun sound, and this is likely not an “echo” per se of the energy in the first pulse, just a different directional part of the gun blast that found its way out of, shall we say, an enclosure???
Continuing, we can clearly see Echo 2, which you noted in your video. This echo occurs at around 80 to 90 ms after the initial blast, so the sound bounced and traveled an additional 100 feet or so to reach the mic.
The other thing I find interesting is there is a faint Echo 3 sitting at around 155-160 ms from the initial blast. This is very close to the same timing of the strong echo in the last five shots, which given that not as much sound energy is propagating out in the first three shots, could be the same echo surface (but with shots 1-3 taken slightly closer to the reflector). The other squiggles you see in these waveforms are by and large residual human noise at higher frequencies.
SHOTS 4-8: These shots sound “brighter” when listened to in the recording. In general, there is a larger, longer primary response (over 20 ms), followed by a reverb (clearest in shots 5 and 6) for 100 ms. I would guess this to be consistent with a gun barrel discharged close to a large metallic plane, with the mic in a good position to capture ringing of the surface. I could believe that Crooks’ gun next to a metal roof was the source of these five shots.
I could not see evidence of a prominent multipath reflection right after the shots, and I could not see evidence of a reflection agreeing with the strong Echo 2 from the first shots.
There is a prominent echo visible in each of the last five shots (for shot 7 we can only see the start of the echo as shot 8 then masks it) that is centered about 165 ms after the initial blast, so a reflection path that is about 190 ft longer than the direct path to the mic.
Please make your own conclusions and explanations. Here are mine:
- Shots 1-3 appear taken from the same gun A and same position A.
- Shots 4-8 appear taken from the same gun B and same position B.
- These two positions A and B are different in significant ways, which also says there are two guns A and B given two seconds between the shot groups.
- Position A appears to be an enclosure that provides a strong multipath signature and significant attenuation of the signal.
- Position B appears to be an open position that does not attenuate the initial blast and excites a nearby open-air surface that rings for a significant duration, as would metal.
- A strong Echo 2 appears in the first three shots that does not appear in the second five shots. One explanation could be a strong bounce off of the internal end of a large enclosure (we can just call it “Building 6” for grins) from which the three shots were taken.
- A strong Echo 1 appears in the last five shots. It could potentially match with a weaker Echo 3 seen in the first three shots, but with a slightly shorter path distance for the first three shots. This could be because the mic repositioned slightly between the groups, the sources aren’t quite the same distance, or some combination of the two.
- I may laugh out loud if you say this is because the first three bullets were different or Crooks changed his stance slightly.
- I may also laugh out loud if you say that because a microphone is in a car all of these signatures from a different direction would look like Octamom had them inside that car.
4 Likes
this is certainly true!
yes, since I have seen the non-blurred photo of the dead man that I labeled “very crooksy”, I am also convinced that it is crooks who died on that roof
there is no evidence for this. only a blurry frame in a video that does not originate from the most trustworthy source, and in that frame one must pay attention to see something like a shell casing being ejected, but there is no recoil, and people have said that that “shell casing” “is there” before the first shot was fired
we will see about that 
I am in the final straight part of the run towards the ballistic trails
yes, as I pointed out with the Swiss cheese model, is certainly dodgy that nobody has seen him and that his shadow is not very consistent with the surroundings when pictured… similarities with vampires should not be neglected
we will see about that, cf. the lone gunman hypothesis
thanks. even though I still believe that is the most obvious location to shoot from, I keep an open mind and wait and see wrt the analysis…
well, as I showed in several of my previous posts, even if a machine fires the same rifle over and over, the grouping is not perfect and there are one or two outliers in several sets of 5 rounds fired by that same machine with that same rifle…
also note that the wind was very strong, and the wind is very unpredictable… the weather history for that day at that location gives 7mph windspeed…
if the wind had been less prominent, Trump would have died…
Gary Melton mentioned some time ago that if a professional sniper misses his shot, he fires a next round immediately… well, 3 shots were fired in 2 seconds…
so, we will see after the weekend with the ballistic trajectories…
about my passion and diligence and perseverance, no need to worry: it is not contagious
1 Like
Can’t you use a VPN ans set your location outside the EU? Or is there something they’re doing to block that option?
Without knowing the exact ammo used, at best we have a SWAG.
Can I ask the group if it has been resolved how those fast 4-8 shots can be from crooks or patsy. Chris showed that pro quick gun near .9 sec and another trained sniper mentioned he can do 1.0 sec but Chris had the .77sec documented. How is that even possible. I looked through the posts and didn’t catch it if resolved.
yes, that is an option, but some sites recognize the computer by means of fingerprinting the fonts available in the browser and kick someone out if they have visited that site before using a vpn.
the other way is not blocked, e.g., if you are a US computer user and you go to their site, and then you would travel to the EU and visit that same site again, the visit is granted.
however, if you visit that site, discover that you get blocked, activate your vpn to appear as if the request comes from the US, the visit is still blocked due to the prior visit.
the way to circumvent that issue is by using a different browser for the second visit, so they complicate people’s lives, but cannot block it completely…
in my trajectories tool, I am iterating over several wind speeds, ballistic coefficients, muzzle velocities, grains, zero ranges and shooting angles, and if a certain combination, when shot from a possible shooter position, matches for multiple victims, then that trajectory gets flagged as “interesting” so that it becomes easy to filter out unlikely combinations
1 Like
I do not have the videos handy, but
-
there is a technique called “jitter finger” with which you hit the trigger rapidly. the jitter finger technique originates from the computer gaming world where people hit a keyboard key or mouse button like crazy, and this technique shoots easily 5 shots in that time frame.
-
Gary Melton from Paramount Tactical also showed that he can shoot 6 rounds with an AR-15 in the same time frame.
-
another possibility would be if the rifle had been changed such that it would shoot in full auto.
-
there is also a crazy trigger extension you can install to turn almost any gun into a gatling machine gun: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/07yXNtGtc-w
as this sort of extension was not reported before, it is extremely unlikely that this sort of gatling trigger extension has been used by crooks to shoot 5 shots in 1 second
the gatling trigger extension fires 2 rounds for every rotation…
so, these are the 4 possibilities I know of to shoot that fast
note, however, that the rapid fire stopped after 5 shots, and the 9th shot came only 1 second after the last shot of 5.
I think the rifle had been modified to shoot full auto and that the clip only contained 5 rounds because it requires serious training to use the jitter finger technique or do it like Gary Melton showed…
1 Like
The 10 ms phase shift would have made sense if the distance between mic 1 and mic 3 was about 3.3 m and if the order was front, middle, rear. In that case you would not even need to compute a TDOA in order to know that the source of the gunshots had been located in front of this car, i.e. AGR bldg. 6.
But as I already explained here, my confidence in the chain of custody of the video- and audio sources as collected in Chris’ dropbox is quite low, especially when seen in the context of a highly political attempt to murder a former and highly likely next president. Your source “Ross, get over here” (which is source 3) is clearly manipulated by an unknown person but used here without restraint to analyse and discuss a wide range of questions.
The same goes with the Dave Stewart film which is source 6 according to Chris’ nomenclature, since Dave’s cell phone was confiscated and released by the FBI only after three days.
And then the public gets presented a fitting dashcam video by the Butler police together with another one, where the audio streams of the bodycam of the very driver of this car were mostly overwritten with noise just within the most critical and most interesting timespan.
Hence I simply do wonder about your good faith, which outside of a criminal context of this magnitude is certainly a likeable trait.
1 Like