(by)Online version. I was unable get rid of x data.
1 Like
if you watch the bodycam footage in which the 9th shot was fired, you will see that that same SWAT officer looks through his scope about 8-9 seconds after he shot the 9th round, and then the 10th shot is firedâŠ
it can be pure coincidence that he looked through his scope to confirm his 9th shot was a hit and that the 10th shot came from someone else, but the timing allows that the 10th shot was fired by this SWAT officerâŠ
this is the 10th shot: https://youtu.be/4D2y6rZYuwY?t=1277
Roger, I have something for you to take a look at, please, and some questions.
I have plotted and rotated trajectories for 55 grains ammo against your elevations. They work like a charm, really. I used a 100 yard zero, which is a , very, very reasonable zero to consider at those distances, especially since the shooter (or patsy) was using a red-dot and his rangeâs website mentions targets at 50-100-187 yards for zeroing.
a) How sure are we about those ground elevations?
b) Did you consider a 1" high wooden block as a base for the bleachers?
c) Could you tell us more about your elevations? Can you explain the AGRdifference on your drawing, please? The differences you mention on your drawing, for trump and rail. I imagine you have a file somewhat like this one Iâm sending everyone.
On these images and file, Iâve added another cells there in yellow which I called âextraâ, so I could add or subtract more heights to test out my own different scenarios. One scenario I tested, was to use the data from the drawing, and then add the same values that you mention as AGRdifferences, (again, for a second time, as I understand now that those values were already considered in your ground elevations derived from those differences from the agr ground level) and when that is done, I get that the Crooks trajectory works. Have you tried such a scenario?
Oh yeah, and hereâs the file
With the Extra values enabled, the Crooks trajectory works, and Vent doesnât.
With the Extra values disabled, the Vent trajectories work, and Crooks doesnât.
not out of a 556.
1 Like
Has anyone else watched the two assassination committee presentations from yesterday?
I kind of skimmed through the transcript of the official committee press conference at the shooting site. They all pretty said they were serious about the investigation, blah, blah, blah.
The unofficial committee was quite a bit longer and slightly more interesting. They had one of the members of the Washington county sniper team, who some of us were thinking might have made the kill shot. He said they not only did not make the kill shot, they didnât even have a view of Crooks, ever. Thatâs about the only new âinsiderâ information from the conference.
The bit I was someone disturbed about was that Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, was allowed to opine that it was quite unlikely there were two shooters. His reasoning is that if there were two shooters the second shooter would have fired away once Mr. Trump stood back up.
The thing is, the guy on the roof was dead by the time Mr. Trump stood up. If the second shooter fired away, it would have proven there were two shooters (duh), but it also would have meant the second shooter was going to be tracked down and probably killed. The second shooter may not have signed on for that.
Erik Prince is almost certainly smarter than I am in matters like this. If he is being asked to provide this kind of one sided narrative, I am almost certain no one of note will be bringing up a âsecond shooterâ theory.
I would certainly like to challenge someone to get up there on the roof of AGR building 6 with a rifle like Crooksâ and make shots that sound like both sets of reports that have been recorded. Also there needs to be a reproduced podium and bleachers with a line that goes from near Crooksâ body, by Trumpâs ear, to near the corner of the bleachers. If those two conditions are met I will be satisfied that there was one shooter.
Some of you may remember that for the JFK assassination they had snipers try to reproduce making three shots in the amount of time Oswald had, with the type of rifle he supposedly used. Snipers were able to get three shots off, but no one was able to get two hits with the accuracy Oswald supposedly had - that rifle was notoriously inaccurate. It also had a misaligned sight. The snipers didnât try to reproduce getting an animal head to snap back toward the bullet, but someone did get it to work with melons(!).
Remember folks, the entire mainstream media, including the entertainment industry, has been trying to tell us for 60 years that Oswald was the lone shooter, when the Zapruder film clearly shows JFKâs head snapping backward, toward Oswald.
6 Likes
Thank you for referencing the video at that specific time. We can see that immediately after the 10th shot, the ESU officer puts his fist up into the air and then turns around, looking back toward the barns. So, does this mean:
-
âYes. I got him good on my second shot, after 10 seconds of looking through my scope, waiting to see if he popped his head back up. Iâm a badass.â
-
âHercules, good shot. The threat is eliminated.â
Hercules had a much better vantage point compared to the ESU officer on the ground.
After shot 9, I donât see any indication that the turd on the roof raised back up very much. So, i donât think the ESU officer had a good sight picture, but Iâm guessing that Hercules did. I think the turd was still moving, so Hercules decided to put another round in him.
I guess this is a good time to share a video that I did a couple weeks ago. This is not my proudest work, so Iâd like to keep is somewhat on the DL. I think that during shot 10, the shooter was down on the roof. Of course, the blurred TMZ video makes it somewhat hard to tell, so thatâs why Iâd really like to see the unblurred version, which we will never get to see due to non-disclosure $$$.
Anyway, I think we see a a prone crook here, and a chunk of crook flesh on its way back down to the roof. But I could be wrong. Given all this, I donât think the ESU officer was at the right angle to execute shot 10.
In the video, I did my best to align the frames vertically, but since the Ross! âcamera manâ was panning upward during shot 10, we donât actually see the instant that the bullet impacted flesh, only what happened immediately afterward. I also looked at the Grimly video for shot 10, but donât see anything useful there.
3 Likes
Very well reasoned!
2 Likes
Hi daniloraf,
I am happy to see that someone is verifying our numbers. Such kind of discussions are very productive, and it gives more confidence in what we are doing. Just to explain one more time how this âjoint projectâ is working: In the beginning we started with version 1 simulation, not having all parameters available. Well, you have to start somewhere, right?
Then during the last month many people challenged the data and when somebody brought convincing arguments to change the data points or if the majority disagreed just like in a domacary 
, I upgraded these values in the next version. So now we are at version 5 and frankly speaking it is getting harder and harder to find something that does not add up in this drawing. Maybe you can give your personal input and if convincing I will integrate your findings into version 6.
As for your questions:
a) Ground levels: We have been provided very accurate Topographical Maps coming from LAND ID (thank you LAND ID for providing!) I recommend to you to take the 10 Min crash course and to follow the instructions as described and please read all the way to the end:
In the meantime, our floor levels have been reconfirmed in a completely different approach, namely from Garyâs video using a high accuracy drone. We are perfectly matched! So, I think it is with confidence that we can say our floor levels are accurate. Here is the Post about Garyâs video and the confirmation of the floor levels:
b) Wooden blocks: We have been very conservative with our 1 inch âpre-loadâ or leveling height, giving Crooks the benefit of the doubt. As you can see in this Post:
The bleachers are not set on wooden raiser blocks, rather they are used to level out the bleachers when setting up. However, they do crank the stage up to stabilize it. (see the YouTube video in that post) Therefore our 1 Inch increase in height is very conservative. If we were 2 or more inches, the trajectory would even go lower towards Crooks, making it even more difficult to find a path to Crooks.
c) Extra elevations: Yes, everything is clearly indicated in the drawing as per these screen shots.
So, I think I was able to answer all your questions. Maybe if something is not clear, just use my ref. numbers. I do agree with your absolute values indicated in your Excel sheet. I will add this information in Version 6 in the next drawing:
Now I have a question to you: What is the meaning of extra 1 in yellow in your Excel file: 2,185 (Trumps ear) and 1,17 (Bleachers)? This does not make scence to meâŠ
1 Like
âdonât think the ESU officer had a good sight pictureâ
He did raise his hand⊠so⊠he could see Crooks, possibly⊠but I agree with you on shot 10 being from the Hercules.
Ah yes, I saw that flesh yesterday for the first time when I was working on the shell casing ejection. At first I thought: âwow, those are brainsâ, then âno, those are birds on the trees flying away because of the shot soundâ, then⊠âIt would be a big coincidence, and strange, since birds would have gotten away already after the 9 shotsâ. and finally âwell, big poof of hairââŠ
2 Likes
Those are extra lines I use to plot out different scenarios by adding or subtracting heights, on that particular file I simply used the same values that you had considered, and added the same values, but they could be whatever anyone wanted to test out. I used the same values that you call AgrDifference, refs 402 and 954. As I came to understand from you, your ground levels already accounted those values, I simply added them again, as I added many other values to test out, and I noticed that when I add those particular values for a second time, the Crooks trajectory then works. Delete them both at once and then Use Ctrol-Z to cancel, and watch the trajectories on both charts while you do it⊠perfect match in either one or the other theory (vent or crooks).
Thank you for the reply, Roger, and thank you for pointing me to the previous posts, Iâll resd those for sure.
1 Like
Hi @roger-knight,
I took a look at your original and copy of frame 105. Are you sure these are the same frame from each video version? I say that because upon inspection, there are lots of differences between the two that arenât things a video codec would do to one and not the other (like the video coding block alignment is different between the two). Before I go analyzing it further, could you just make sure we are looking at the same frame in both, because if we are something is very wrong (other than the curious case of the appearing cartridge).
It would also be super helpful to have other frames where the cartridge is visible to compare between the two.
I will see if I can grab frames myself but I donât have a video editor.
Actually I donât think he was at the right angle for 9th shot to destruct his right-handed weapon.
2 Likes
Hi daniloraf,
You have to understand the way I drew my 3D drawing. I put the ARG at ground level (zero) of the drawing in the Y axis. To simulate the back tracing bullet, I have to consider the height differences between the ARG building and Trumps ear and between the ARG building and the bleachers. This gives me a total height of both elements in the Y direction. So, in my CAD model I have trumps ear at 11.76833 Inches higher than the floor of the ARG building and the bleachers at 12.21167. With these two heights we are able to trace back the bullet.
If you are interested in the absolute heights referring to sea level, you can calculate the way I did it:
Keep in mind taking the absolute floor levels already take into consideration the different heights, so you canât count them double. It seems you made an error in your logic. May I ask you, if you agree, to update your Excel sheet and post it, to avoid any miss information from your side?
Looking at the 3D simulation, Crooks misses Trumps ear by far (red line), Trump would have to be standing on the mic stand to be able hit his right ear. The shot from Vent 3 (blue line) according to our calculation is in perfect line. As you can see there are also no obstacles in the way for taking this shot (fence and left bleachers)
1 Like
Hi offtheback,
I am glad you are willing to take the time to analyse this strange phenomena.
Since I am a fully transparent guy (not like our government) I am sharing everything with this zip file, namely the short sequence of the video I downloaded on Friday and the short sequence I downloaded on Tuesday (new original version from the TMZ site). I would have preferred you doing it by yourself, because I often get critizied of doctering the video myself. But since you donât have the correct tools and you are willing to verify, I am sending you everything.
In terms of the names: original would be the one from Friday, copy would be the one from Tuesday.
I have to mention a small detail: There is a 1 frame offset between both of them. So if you take frame original 115 and compare it with 114 copy you get a perfect match. Further perfect matches are:
114/113
108/107
104/103
103/102
99/98
98/97
And from the end of this small sequence all way to the end of the video it is a perfect match, giving a 99% matchingâŠ
I did not want to create many questions, why I am comparing 105 with 104, of course 5 guys would have said, you are comparing two different frames. But now that you have all frames, I had to let you know this small detail.
Please share your findings with us! Good pixel hunting!
I personally have lost complete confidence in this video. For me personally, I have already put it into the red zoneâŠ
(Our old engineer strugles with 1000 sps multichannel signal recording since y2020. It looks to me covid19 had washed out his brain and he does not understand what he is doing. Terribly annoying. Or it is just simly aging.)
For example we have a hydraulic press (with PID) and two different sets of transducers, amplifiers, filters and displays. Usually we donât even know the filter type and its parameters to be checked.
Signal processing, like band filter, makes a little delay, because you have to add subsequent samples in certain ways. So what we try to compare samples-by-samples have unknown delay at one side. Additionally each signal processing procedure increases the distortion of the signal and can make artifact on it.
A few years ago I wrote a reverse calculator program. When you tell me the coefficients, it is easy to calculate the attenuation and phase shift of the filter. Then I use linalg. So if you tell me what attenuation you want at given frequencies, I can tell you the coefficients. (So I donât need to use the windowing functions like Hamming or Chebishew.)
this is highly speculative and from my point of view not what happened.
this is what I see and is more likely to match what happened: the SWAT officer fired the 9th shot, he did not keep crooks in sight whole the time and and a couple of seconds after the 9th shot, he looked back through his scope, saw he was not dead yet, and took the 10th shot.
the reason why I think this is much more likely than the scenario you romanticize is because of the timing and the fact that a bullet from the sniper rifles that are in use by the snipers on the barn behaves totally differently and has a much higher impact than the rifles used by the SWAT teamsâŠ
the snipers use MK13 mod 7 rifles chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum, and this round is much more devastating than the shorter barreled SWAT rifle that uses a smaller caliber (I do not recall these parameters by heart)
this is exactly the point: it is very much unclear what happens due to the blurring and the moving tmz-logo.
it is very much the same as with the identity of who I used to call âthe man who died on the roofâ.
since a couple of non-blurred images have been made available that show a high resemblance to crooks, that is fine with me, and now I am ok with calling that man crooks.
I prefer to minimize the number of assumptions to make before making any definitive statements, and based on the crook flesh video you shared, I cannot make any definitive statementsâŠ
yes, I have often wondered about the background of many who respond and comment on this forumâŠ
I have studied a lot, almost my entire adult life, and I have many years of practical experience in each of these disciplines:
- even during and after my studies for my first degree (master in computer science), I took several years of language classes in parallel (3 languages)
- I have a PhD in electrical engineering
- I have been working as a researcher for over 25 years, specializing in computer security and have a few patents related to my research results
- I have taught many civil engineering students
- I have been an expert witness for several prosecutorsâ offices in many computer forensic cases and have all the diplomas and qualifications required for this work, including a postgraduate degree in law regarding the chain of custody
- I have been shooting guns since 2010
- I have also been actively practicing as a licensed and registered dietitian and nutritionist for several years now and train colleagues in this field.
I realize âall of the aboveâ may seem like an odd combination and results in an extremely unique profile, but it is what it isâŠ
2 Likes
I was originally very confused by elevation calculations in your diagrams with the âdifference AGRâŠâ lines. I eventually figured it out, but I think itâs much clearer the way you have it with the chart layout. First line, base elevation, next line or two have add-ons to elevation, final line is elevation.
3 Likes
It is relative, I agree. The problem starts when we try to compare models with different satellite references.
I use option 2: project on absolute height, then correct for distortions due to satellite angle.