Audio Analysis Is Most Consistent Two Shooters At Trump Rally

[commenter]

Kudos for the analysis of the different echoes, it adds an independent dimension of evidence against a single shooter. It’s also sharp quantitatively as far as the different delays between echoes.

The evidence from video source 4 is somewhat contributory, but suffers from having to make assumptions about the videographer moving at the same speed and in same direction between different shots.

I still find the most compelling audio evidence against a single shooter at ~450 ft as being the different delays in report for shots 1-3 versus 4-8 in Trump’s stationary mic. This requires no spectrogram, no reading visuals of echoes there (an interpretation that some may not have confidence in).

The difference in delay .22 versus .213 implies the single shooter would have, in the 2.783 seconds between shots 3 and 4, moved about 15 feet, repositioned, resighted, and shot fairly accurately - an absurd implication.

The math again is simple:

(1) The supersonic crack comes at time of T seconds after firing 1-3. To cover 450 feet, if the supersonic bullet’s average speed is S ft/sec, we have ST = 450 or an average speed of S=450/T.
(2) The boom (sound) comes to Trump’s mic at a time of T+.22 after firing shots 1-3 and travels at the speed of sound of 1200 ft/s, so 1200(T+.22)=450, which implies T=.155 seconds.
(3) Substituting this T back in (1) implies bullets 1-3 averaged a speed of 2903 ft/s.

Now for shots 4-8 the delay was just .213, per Chris’ measurements, so if bullets 4-8 were of the same kind, a single shooter of 1-8 would have had to move. How much? Call this new distance x, from firing position of 4-8 to Trump’s mic. A similar computation to the above elucidates x:

(1) The supersonic crack comes at time of T’ seconds after firing 4-8. To cover x feet, if the supersonic bullet’s average speed is S’ ft/sec, we have S’T’ = x or a time of T’=x/S’. Assuming bullets 4-8 traveled as fast as 1-3, S’=S=2903, we have T’= x/2903.
(2) The boom (sound) comes to Trump’s mic at a time of T’+.213 after firing any of shots 4-8 and travels at the speed of sound of 1200 ft/s, so 1200(T’+.213)=x, which implies T’=x/1200 - .213

(3) We have two values for T’ from the above two points, and they must equal, for they both refer to the same definition, the time between firing any of 4-8 to the supersonic crack at Trump’s mic. Equating them, writing we have

x/2903 = T’ = x/1200 - .213

which has solution x = 435.7 feet., rather than 450 feet for shots 1-3.

Conclusion: Bullets 1-3 with a crack-report delay of .22 second, if assumed to have traveled 450 feet, and bullets 4-8 with a crack-report of .213 second, if assumed to have traveled at the same average speed, would imply 4-8 were taken about 14.3 feet closer than shots 1-3. The single shooter could not have moved this far in 2.783 seconds (between shot 3 and 4), repositioned, resighted, and fired accurately.

This argument relies only on arithmetic and an assumption the would-be single shooter would have used the same type of bullet in 1-3 as in 4-8. (Crooks was highly diligent, besides, he bought a case of ammo that morning, he would not have mixed bullets.) It does not rely on interpreting spectrograms or estimating the speed and direction of videographer 4.

This argument also tells us that shots 4-8 were taken about 15 feet closer to Trump than were shots 1-3.

If we are to go by data in forming hypotheses, we must accept this differential distance even if we cannot fathom where the other shooter must have been positioned.

[vegaspatriot]

Just thinking this through some more. The potential sniper on the distant 2-story building probably would have accessed the roof the same way Crooks did.

[bumblebeeez]

Someone else did an audio analysis that put shots 1 to 3 short of Crooks. I’m trying to find it. They had the shots at 130-135 m if I recall correctly.

That would place the shooter in the building below Crooks. There’s literally no other place to be, but there. It’s part of the reason I’m so focused on that third window from the right and the building cutouts/vents.

It also explains why the first 3 shots sound completely different. It explains why that man wanted the crowd away from the fence line. It explains why Crooks’ body doesn’t move for the first shot.

[offtheback]

Several problems with the crack-report distance:
a) no guarantee that two shooters would be using bullets with same velocity
b) time difference for each crack-report depends on how close each bullet passes to mic. A bullet that hits the nearer stands propagates the sonic boom from that nearest approach, (50 ft?) at the speed of sound, so 40 ms for crack to reach mike from closest approach; a bullet passing a few feet from the mic will produce an audible crack just a few ms after it passes.

[bumblebeeez]

If they were aware of that, wouldn’t they want to adjust for it?

Meaning, if they know where the first shooter Crooks is going to be, and they line up their second shooter for the first three shots at a slightly different distance/location, wouldn’t they try to choose other variables on purpose to match up with Crooks distance/velocity?

[commenter]

Now I take this conclusion (that 4-8 were ~15 feet closer to Trump than 1-3) to test four different hypotheses:

(A) Shots 1-3 from 1st floor window 3 of AGR, counting from east to west, and 4-8 by Crooks.
→ The above conclusion rules this out, because shots 4-8 were ~15 feet closer to Trump yet the window was closer to Trump.

(B) Shots 1-3 from Crooks, 4-8 from said 1st floor window
→ The above conclusion is consistent, but the fact that the muffled audio is from shots 1-3 rules this out

(C) Shots 1-3 from Crooks, 4-8 from eastern parapet
→ The above conclusion is rules this out, because shots 4-8 were ~15 feet closer to Trump yet the parapet was farther from Trump.

(D) Shots 1-3 from eastern parapet, 4-8 from Crooks
→ The above conclusion is consistent. The muffled sound of 1-3 in recordings on the west side of AGR is also consistent with the parapet on the eastern side being depressed relative to the AGR roof.

But I am unsure if D as a possibility, because the parapet might not have a line of sight to Trump. The line from the most favorable corner of parapet to Trump cuts through the corner of the AGR 6 roof, and the parapet is depressed relative to the roof:

A shot from there would work only if the roof descends fast enough so that the blue line from the parapet lies above the AGR 6 roof at that point of blue-red intersection.

[offtheback]

Yes, as possible, but the required bullet velocity may not be feasible. But they can’t control if the bullets aren’t in a tight grouping. What they also can’t adjust for, though, is source 4 over to the side allowing triangulation off of the speed-of-sound report. Even if source 4 move 20 or 30 feet, there is a 150-foot difference that should be in the data if the second shooter is behind. Nothing looks feasible for the second shooter being in front.

[bigtim]

I’ve mentioned this before but there are inherent problems with trying to get precise with bullet speeds and distances because of the inherent inconsistencies between bullets and amount of powder in the casing, even in the same lot and box. Variations can be as much as 5% or more in speed. A bullet rated for 3000 f/s could be 2900 or 3100 f/s. It gets more complicated if there are different manufacturers, different bullet types, different weights, etc. involved. Those could be in the same rifle and magazine, or theoretically 2 different shooters using entirely different ammunition. It might be more complicated if the rifle barrel lengths are different and/or if they are using different muzzle devices, which can alter the acoustic signatures.

Then you have the myriad of variables to account for and issues with different audio sources, types, brands, locations, and some are moving angles and locations…

It’s my (unprofessional but life experiences) best educated guess that trying to pinpoint locations based on acoustics is going to be at best an approximation. There are too many variables and too many unknowns.

I do believe we can glean from the audio, however, is that it clearly is 2 sets of shots based on the acoustics and cadence. Shots 1-3 are internally consistent in sound and cadence, wheres they sound remarkably different than shots 4-8 which are internally consistent in sound and cadence within the set. Those, in my opinion, are two different shooters, locations, and rifles.

@bumblebeeez

If they were aware of that {bullet speeds, crack-report}, wouldn’t they want to adjust for it? Meaning, if they know where the first shooter Crooks is going to be, and they line up their second shooter for the first three shots at a slightly different distance/location, wouldn’t they try to choose other variables on purpose to match up with Crooks distance/velocity?

I’d wager that is a level of detail that didn’t concern the Feds, assuming they were involved and attempting to make it appear as thought it was 1 shooter, Crooks. I doubt they’d have thought or cared about this microscopic level of “conspiracy” details on a civilian investigation. Especially when they control most of the evidence, can fabricate any evidence, delete any evidence, etc. The level of detail could be achieved, but we’re talking precision measuring of grains of bullets to account for 1/10th of a second in traveling the distances discussed, and supplying Crooks with the bullets. But they operate with a level of impunity.

From their perspective, a successful Trump assassination would have lead to no viable GOP candidates, a Biden re-election, and no real world consequences for the SS, FBI, or the administration. It’d have all just been swept away, leaving a bunch of angry Trump supporters powerless to do anything… and our “conspiracies.”

@commenter

Now I take this conclusion (that 4-8 were ~15 feet closer to Trump than 1-3) to test four different hypotheses:

As I mentioned, I believe the acoustics are going to be too clumsy to pinpoit a shooter. But having said that, I will point out the echo accoustics from shots 1-3 reach Source #4 notably faster than shots 4-8. That seems acoustically difficult or impossible if shots 1-3 are muffled from inside the AGR #6 below and forward of Crooks. That sound would have to travel farther and around the building than shots 4-8.

Another point, as has been brought up, I think we can almost entirely rule out AGR #6 ground floor as not having reliably good shots from any window as none were opened or damaged, and while the vents are possibilities, none of these seem to have a good reliable view of the diaz and Pres Trump. They are all somewhat, partially or totally obstructed from the chain link fence, people and police in the grass (risk of observation), and people/bleachers. Notice how poor of an angle the 1st floor is to see Trump thru many RANDOM obstacles. Crooks was a lot higher and still struck and killed a man in the bleachers between him and Trump with shot #6.

I’ve suggested before, and renew, check out the taller building behind Crooks, watch the video, seems to be a head movement between the two vertical air vents.

[offtheback]

Tim, all of what you said (which sounds right) cautions against using bullet arrival times. But the report from the end of the gun, and how it echoes off its surroundings, is bound by known laws of physics only, and math can allow us to measure these delays precisely. Also, we know exactly where Crooks was and approximately where the mics were. This makes it very easy to test for and accept/reject whether he shot all of the first 8 based on acoustics of the reports. The fact that they sound different between 1-3 and 4-8 and have different echoes just screams different gun, as you point out.

[bumblebeeez]

What does the data say for the distance of the very first shot. Has anyone done analysis on it and just it, on its own?

[offtheback]

People have. But there are too many unknowns to bound it precisely–it could be closer than Crooks or further, or him. Relying on possible/impossible trajectory analysis and intershot time variation can tell us much more.

[bumblebeeez]

You just said it could be closer.

If there are variables that change what we know auditory wise about a shot: then there could still be a shooter in front of Crooks, because those variables might affect the sound of his 5 shots, if he even fired 5 shots at all.

And the same applies to the first three: we don’t know what variables are affecting their sound.

[offtheback]

Yes, based on single-shot analysis, the uncertainty bars are huge. More precise analysis can determine what is likely.

[bumblebeeez]

Mike Bell did a YT video, but his data inputs seemed all wrong: including his location placement of one of the video files(he had them placed way far away from where they actually were located)

It would be nice to see an analysis like his, but with the data input correctly.

[commenter]

How does the hypothesis of a far shooter match up with the audio? Recorded on west side of AGR 6, those far shots would have sounded muffled, and it was shots 1-3 that were more muffled than 4-8. So we’d have to deduce from your hypothesis that 1-3 were from the far roof, and 4-8 from AGR 6.

But in this latest video at around 19:35, Chris shows that the echoes of 4-8 take about .17 seconds to arrive as compared to ~.08 seconds for shots 1-3, for source 4. Does this differential delay of echoes suggest that shots 4-8 are farther from or closer to source 4 than are shots 1-3? I would think 4-8 would be farther based on echoes (not sure), so not from AGR 6. But this contradicts the conclusion of the last paragraph, that “4-8 from AGR 6.”

[bigtim]

@offtheback

But the report from the end of the gun, and how it echoes off its surroundings, is bound by known laws of physics only, and math can allow us to measure these delays precisely.

All very true. Question (and I do not know the answer): Could a louder or more forceful noise be picked up or recorded/registered faster/better or more clearly than a softer noise? Where we are talking 10ths of milliseconds?

Also, there’s not just the myriad of bullets, weights, amount of powder, barrel lengths, muzzle devices variables. A different muzzle device could very likely account for a huge variation in sound and direction of sound, for instance. A birdcage muzzle device may push the sound to the sides, whereas a brake may push it upwards, whereas a linear compensator may push it forwards, whereas a suppressor may simply deaden it. That’s a lot of variables just on a muzzle device where 2 identical guns and ammo will sound entirely different with 2 different muzzle devices.

And, let’s not forget the receiver of those noises account for now a dozen (?) different locations and quality of microphones pointed in 360 degree directions.

[bigtim]

@bumblebeeez

If there are variables that change what we know auditory wise about a shot: then there could still be a shooter in front of Crooks, because those variables might affect the sound of his 5 shots, if he even fired 5 shots at all.

Well, one fairly consistent variable is that if there was a shooter in front of Crooks the only location appears to be inside ground floor, AGR#6. Sound would be muffled, and have to travel out of the building, and then to the various sound sources. I presume that would delay the sound to some sources behind, drastically more than the delay to sources in front.

@commenter

But in this latest video at around 19:35, Chris shows that the echoes of 4-8 take about .17 seconds to arrive as compared to ~.08 seconds for shots 1-3, for source 4. Does this differential delay of echoes suggest that shots 4-8 are farther from or closer to source 4 than are shots 1-3? I would think 4-8 would be farther based on echoes (not sure), so not from AGR 6. But this contradicts the conclusion of the last paragraph, that “4-8 from AGR 6.”

My apologies, my memory may be incorrect. I thought Chris concluded the echos to Source 4 were faster for shots 1-3, not slower. I could be incorrect.
If they are indeed faster, which I just reviewed the video and believe they are, then shots 1-3 on the 2nd story roof 300 ft. behind Crooks is consistent.

Those echos would be traveling forward and a 90 degree angle and reach S4 (I theorize) miliseconds faster than Crooks report and echo, reaching S4 traveling backwards and 90 degrees from Crooks position. We are talking milliseconds.

Here’s the video discussed.

Audio Analysis Most Consistent Two Shooters At Trump Rally - Peak Prosperity

[commenter]

Another argument against a far shooter is that the snick-boom delay of .22 (or .213 for that matter) from that far implies a very slow bullet (which would have a lot of drop over 600 feet and be unlikely to be used in a high profile assassination).

From Google Earth, the distance from that far roof to Trump’s stage is about 730 feet. If T is the time for the bullet to travel, T*s = 730 where S is average speed of the bullet. The same equation for sound is (T+.22)1200 = 730 or T = .388. Now substitute back to get the average speed of the bullet as s = 730/T = 730/.388 = 1882 ft/second.

This is way too slow. (A 223 round starts at around 3000 ft/s and at 200 has slowed down to about 2500 ft/s, such a low average would be impossible with a 223, which the second shooter from there would have used to match Crooks’ 223/5.56).

[bumblebeeez]

If the first 3 shots are a minimum of 12.75 feet closer to source 4 than 4-8, why doesn’t the building lower window or vent account for that? I think it does.

[Album] imgur.com

[bigtim]

@commenter

Another argument against a far shooter is that the snick-boom delay of .22 (or .213 for that matter) from that far implies a very slow bullet (which would have a lot of drop over 600 feet and be unlikely to be used in a high profile assassination).

From Google Earth, the distance from that far roof to Trump’s stage is about 730 feet. If T is the time for the bullet to travel, T*s = 730 where S is average speed of the bullet. The same equation for sound is (T+.22)1200 = 730 or T = .388. Now substitute back to get the average speed of the bullet as s = 730/T = 730/.388 = 1882 ft/second.

This is way too slow.

I have owned and shot AR15s since 2000 or so. I qualified repeatedly Sharpshooter and Expert in the US Army, and am a combat vet very versed in the platform. The M4/AR15 platform has a max effective range around 600 meters (1800 feet). Too many variables (barrel length, bullet type/weight, muzzle device, etc) to account for to speak specifically. Military qualifies with the rifle at ranges out to 300 yards (900 feet). Very do-able shot with iron sights and easier with an optic, and super simple with a magnified optic at which point it’s a layup.

The rifle zeroed at 25 meters is dead-on at 300 meters. There is slight bullet rise during the middle of the trajectory and then falling at the end a bit, but not much. And of course the rifle could be zeroed for farther known distances to be more precise (100 meters, 300 meters, etc.). This shot, from the 2 story roof being about 430 feet + 285 feet equaling about 715 feet is something a 18 year old infantryman could learn in 1 day of training. A rifle zeroed to around that distance, not a problem for the rifle or the bullet to get there as long as the shooter does his part. Assuming:
715 feet and 3000 f/s bullet travel, that’s 0.23 seconds travel time. If we increase it to a faster match grade ammo (which is plausible) to 3200 f/s then we have 0.22 seconds.

I cannot speak to the math/speed at those distances, but generally agree some speed is bled off and the bullet might be dropping and impact would depend on point of aim and point of impact.

But this longer distance, and slightly more challenging shot, might explain why all 3 shots missed…

And, while it may just be an optical illusion we do have a notably downward trajectory of one of the first shots and a bullet giving some support to an elevated position of the shooter…