Audio Analysis Is Most Consistent Two Shooters At Trump Rally

[daniloraf]

Hi @roger-knight
I can see you’re upset, it wasn’t my intention. That spreadsheet was made to test out scenarios, and your latest data passed with flying colors against ballistic drop for the 55grains 5.56 ammo that I use, btw. (HowDoIKnow’s scenario flopped on that Aug15th try). About the spreasheet, I use the “extra” lines on the spreadsheet to add or subtract many values while I check theories against ballistic data, without having to delete the values that are being agreed upon by the community. As you have explained, the ground elevations you use on your drawings, ALREADY have those “AGRdifference” heights for trump and rail in them, so what you see there on that previous post 1123 is that I tested out a scenario where I add them again, for a second time, (as you have observed and pointed out), and I found it curious that when I did so, the Crooks trajectory worked. Both theories work with that particular alteration to the testing spreadsheet (p. It doesn’t mean one or the other is already wrong, we would just need to confirm those elevations. Your elevations being correct, I will agree with you on the vent theory. Should elevations be flatter, then Crooks seems more likely to me. After elevations then we could test windage, but I believe elevations need to work out first, otherwise it could be pointless to do more complicated work before the simpler work fits.
How about this, I’ll upload a new one right below that I made with better wording, what do you think? This one also has some change tracking of your drawings to the right of the ballistic data. Maybe I could ask some questions about those AGRdifferences and also about the recent changes since Aug15th?

a) how did you get to those AGRdifferences for Trump and Rail? (Ref 402 and Ref 690). I know they’re offsets from considering AGR6 on ground level 0, and what their purpose is (to backtrace), but how did you get to those numbers 2,185 and 1,17 mathematically? As you mentioned you used data provided by a company for the elevation of AGR6, but why did you have to come up with an offset if the company had topographical data of the area?

b) I noticed you changed the position of the vent 0,14 feet up since August 15th. What did I miss? I also noticed some increases on some items (see columns AC to AE on the spreadsheet below, please).

Oh, and for @sonjax6 and @kincses-zsolt, our math wizards, if you guys could, when you have a little time, could you check the approach for rotating the trajectory of the bullet on columns X and AA, please ? (angle and radians above the header). No need to summon R. Feynman for ultra high-end precision work, just a reasonable-sanity-check…

Excel spreadsheet link here

[kwaka]

@offtheback

So yes, there is an echo. Does it actually go with the report it follows or not?

I have not gotten deep into the car audio yet. Got some troubling red flags so far.

When analyzing shot #1 from the TMZ video, what I am hearing is a solid thump on first report. This is followed by what sounds like the roof of building 6 rattling as it deals with the thump of the shock wave.

With the ‘echo’ in the car audio, it too might be the roof rattle. It could even be some car rattle from the shock wave. Generally, sound travels faster through more dense objects as the atoms don’t have to bounce around as much to transfer the signal. The glass and sheet metal is fairly thin so don’t expect much change in the timing. Insulation is used on the car floor and roof that will deaden some of the sound.

Thanks for pointing out these problems. Will try and follow up soon.

[roger-knight]

Hi Sonja,

I will integrate this small Excel table showing the absolute heights in my next drawing version 6.

[roger-knight]

OK, switching gears…

I started to analyse Jon Malis video, and I was happy to have a good HD version, of which I could find in this Forum. I told to myself, finally a cristal clear movie without any grey or black paint covering up the most interesting parts of the video. So, when Jon goes back behind the tree, you can see the guy in the red cap (who is that guy?) that gets the full 8 shots on camera,

but you can also see Mike DiFrischia (Ross) for quite a long time. Jon was filming behind his back, and I was curious if maybe we can see the screen of Mike and what he is filming just to double check if it is in accordance with the movie, we see on the TMZ homepage.

Ahhhhhh my black paint nightmare is back! Nohhh…

Ok, I took a deep breath and continued to watch frame by frame, hoping to maybe find one screen shot which appears not to have black paint over it. Maybe we are lucky:

Even though it seems that some black paint has been put on his head, we can clearly see the red T-shirt in this frame and some following frames as well. Therefore, this is not a reflection of somebody in the back of the camera, it is the actual frame of the video.

OK, so far nothing special, because I remember seeing the same guy in the red T-shirt in the TMZ movie. So, I time stamped both videos, putting the first shot at zero. We should see the same frame at the same time in both videos.

Let’s investigate!

So, I look at the time stamp where we can clearly see the red T-shirt guy in Mike’s screen, and it turns out to be at 20.63 seconds after the first shot.

Then I started to watch the TMZ video and first I thought we got a match:

But wait… the time stamp is at 12:66 seconds and the guy with the red T-shirt’s face is turned twards the camera. Nope that’s not the frame we are looking for… (By the way, why is this guy in the red T-shirt standing around when shots are fired? He does not seem to be too concerned )

I get to frame 20:66 seconds and what is this???

No guy with the red T-shirt. I continue to watch all the way to the end and he never appears again in this video…

have a look for yourself:

Crooks on the roof with time stamps.mp4

tree view with time stamps.mp4

[roger-knight]

Hi daniloraf,

@daniloraf

I can see you’re upset, it wasn’t my intention.

No, not at all, simply sometimes people put out baseless claims and we take the time to debunk it and instead of giving feedback to the answer, you see the same baseless claim in another post from the same guy 3 days later. This to me is more of a distraction from getting to the truth. I really appreciate your answer, and I can see you are not one of those guys that is trying to create confusion in this forum, you seem to be an honest guy.

a) The floor level height is the most challenged topic in this drawing and I can only recommend for those who don’t understand the way we got the accurate floor levels is to follow the suggested crash course in this topic. Land ID has provided us with high accuracy topographical floor levels. With this, you are able to measure anywhere you want within the entire butler boundary. So all you need to do is to measure the slop from the AGR building to the position where Trump was standing. It will give you very accurate information about the heights of this terrain. In addition, as I mentioned before, in Gary’s video he reconfirmed our heights of which he used a high accuracy drone. So using two completely different methods and getting the same results confirms that we are very close to reality.

@roger-knight

I recommend everybody to sacrifice 10 Min to take a crash course on how to measure slops

b) The way I proceed is I wait until I get a considerable amount of small changes in the data. These are people from this forum who give their feedback and challenge the data. When the claim seems to be legit, I integrate it into the next version, kind of like an update. Now we are at version 5. So probably you are looking at version 4 or lower and seeing some differences. I always mention the data points that have been changed when I come out with a new update.

@roger-knight

OK, guys… the update everybody has been waiting for.

So feel free to ask for any data that you are not able to understand by indicationg the ref. point.

[phasefive]

@kwaka

When analyzing shot #1 from the TMZ video, what I am hearing is a solid thump on first report. This is followed by what sounds like the roof of building 6 rattling as it deals with the thump of the shock wave.

Could excessive roof rattle of certain shots indicate they were fired inside the attic of the building? My analysis of a vent shooter’s location places the building insulation directly on the ceiling of the interior rooms with a possible vent (attic) shooter being above the insulation. This means the bottom side of the metal roof has direct exposure to a gun blast that originates behind a vent.

I am fairly sure of the location of the insulation since the ridge we see in so many pictures of Crooks’ roof, is so large. The large size indicates it is most likely a venting eave. It exhausts hot air in the attic along its full length at the ridge. Cooling intake air is usually supplied by small or linear soffit vents in the underside of the eave.

[vt1 (VT)]

Eq.1 and Eq.2 from the decution, come from kinematics equations.

Newton method is only used on eq.08. As I concluded using medium velocity with the simplified eq. 12 is equivalent of using the more complex eq.08.

I made an example here with simplified drag considerations.

[kwaka]

@phasefive

Could excessive roof rattle of certain shots indicate they were fired inside the attic of the building?

It is possible with the shooter close to the roof surface. The impression I got was an outside shot with a clear thump, did not pick up any internal building ringing. I am new to this kind of thing so could be wrong.

[offtheback]

@kwaka

I just looked at shot 1 from TMZ: there is some in-band crowd noise, but I tried to reject everything over 1 kHz, and I see some ringing and two reflections at 600 Hz, which match the original report:

Original report at about 3.69 seconds, ring 1 at 3.72, ring 2 at 3.86, and ring 3 at 3.89. All have the same frequency and are probably true echos, which may sound like rattle with all the other noise competing.

In the car audio, I would expect a rattle to be set up by and continue from the sound that excited it, like in the last five shots that I looked at for Chris, when the rattling source is so close to the microphone. I would also expect it to exhibit one or more sharp resonant frequencies. The “echoes” in the car audio are delayed and have a broad peak that matches the broad peak of the initial sound, they just have much more high frequency content than the initial sound, and no resonances. So, weird when compared to other sources.

[offtheback]

@kwaka ,

While we are talking about it for TMZ, shots 3-8 have a totally different signature like this one (shot 8)

[kwaka]

I don’t like to rain on this parade, but we are here for the facts above all else:

When I showed up on this board, I was looking for a second shooter bad. Been burnt enough on things like JFK, 9/11, covid… In undertaking this endeavour I was prepared for being wrong, not the first time, wont be the last. What I was looking for is trust in the FBI when they do come out saying it was just the kid on the roof shooting.

The work of greg_n was the kind of evidence I was looking for, hurt seeing his report. Going deep into the TMZ video I had to start to agree with his findings.

With the first version of the image presented above a few weeks ago, I estimated a few inches offset between the line of sight and shooters position. Inside I knew it was more like a few feet. Dealing with that conformation bias is a challenge. I have seen it warp minds so far beyond reality is it a head spin just watching it.

I did not have the data at the time to define a more accurate value. The work done here has been amazing and valuable in finding a clearer line. If someone can find more accurate numbers between James - Trump - South wall, I want to update the image. The height between the camera and hit on the bleacher rail also needs refinement.

For howdoiknowthisinfo, this calculation has opened up your theory. I give you credit on watching the flanks, your black op skills suck. Having a slow, heavy bullet from a further distance makes a one shot chance much tougher. The idea of Crooks on the roof to divert attention does not not work with a second, more skilled shooter on the roof as well. As for investigating this possibility, 10/10.

So where am I, passed the balance of probabilities and entering beyond reasonable doubt. With what doubt does remain enters a level of sophistication in information warfare where our only chance is to unplug from it.

Pro tip: A good information agent does require holding two or more conflicting ideas at the same time.

So where too from here? Keep chipping away, keep asking questions and looking for answers. A lot of failures happened that day. As for a second shooter I am open to it, not there yet.

[macd]

Thanks for your summary.

I’ve always been bothered by the idea of a 2nd shooter from the ground floor of "Building 1 (AGR 6) for two reasons.

1. Even if the elevations were to match, in planning this one could never be sure that someone wouldn’t walk by and interfere with the shot or easily notice the shooter.
2. A sniper “nest” above the ceiling tiles would be hard or impossible to quickly dismantle and traces of it would likely to be eventually discovered by a thorough search.

Thus a planner would be much more likely to select higher elevation sites. Possibilities might be a) the water tower, b) the high roof of AGR 9, and c) the second floor of “Building 2”.

If I’m keeping track properly, a) has been thoroughly eliminated as a possibility, and b) is possible but as yet there is no actual evidence for it. As for c), I’m not sure why this has not been more discussed. We already know there were partially hidden snipers on the 2nd floor whose actions and timeline are puzzling. The 2nd floor also has many south-facing windows and it has been discussed that some of the first 8 shots sound like they may have come from an enclosed space. Just because the FBI claims that 8 casings on the roof came from the dead shooter’s rifle is not conclusive in itself. What other evidence is there to rule out this possibility?

[kwaka]

@macd

Even if the elevations were to match, in planning this one could never be sure that someone wouldn’t walk by and interfere with the shot or easily notice the shooter.

There was an effort by security to keep the area in front of bld 6 clear. In the Stewart video he complains about the harassment. Before the shooting, there was still a gap despite being the best place to see Trump from that position.

It is one of those things that go hmm…

[bumblebeeez]

Oh look, proven line of sight to the AGR sus, super sus 3rd window from that area. The heavy machinery didn’t block it as others tried to claim that it would. Imagine.

If you can see it, it can see you.

[bumblebeeez]

Look at the guy on his phone right there in the grey shirt and shorts at the “end” of the fence line of people. Wasn’t there a plainclothes guy in that area also constantly on his phone around then?

I’d love to know if there was some sort of phone app meeting call (Skype, Zoom, Discord, etc…) going on in that area at the time leading up to and after the shooting. And if so: who were the participants?

[roger-knight]

How about vent 3?

This is not a guess; it is a mathematically calculated position.

[bumblebeeez]

Someone posted an interesting video on Trump’s head turn. What they basically said was that because of the head turn, Trump looks directly at the shooter after his head is turned and when the shot misses. Can we try and determine where that falls on your 3D map?

[macd]

@macd

Even if the elevations were to match, in planning this one could never be sure that someone wouldn’t walk by and interfere with the shot or easily notice the shooter.

OK, instead of my saying “even if the elevations were to match,” perhaps I should have said “even if the elevations do match.” But from a planning perspective I would still say that that vent position is far too risky.

[texian]

Didnt the initial reports from the officers at the scene report finding 5 casings?

I understand the situation was still somewhat fluid & there was the possibility that 3 additional casings were out of view, but…

Currently, I’m of the opinion that the deceased dude fired the 5 rapid shots we hear AFTER the initial 3 shots fired by ‘whoever.’

PS: I discovered this magnificent site less than a week ago. I enjoy the in-depth discussions. My first post.

[roger-knight]

What makes you think that? It is the best place to be in.

I am speculating now, let’s say the sniper that leaves early actually does not go home and he has ample time to install himself in the upper zone. He waits until he hears Crooks on the roof and takes the first 3 shots. The fact that he is so close to Crooks makes it almost impossible to prove the audio analysis let alone the back tracing of the bullet. Maybe he even uses different bullets to compensate the small distance between him and Crooks.

The fact however which is very fortunate in this case is that the first bullet touches Trumps ear and then goes right into the corner of the bleachers, locking two points in space and therefore making it possible for us to exactly back trace the bullet from where it is coming from… Chris also analysed the audio proving that the first 3 shots were buffered, had different frequencies and no echoes from the side of building 6. Everything adds up perfectly.