That is my impression from looking into it. If there has been some nefarious editing going on, it is around the moment of the first shot that is important. From all the different copies of this video around, the only ones where I cannot spot any ejected case is in the lower resolution versions, would not expect to see them there.
2 Likes
That probably was Gary in one of his shows.
Iām no shooting expert either, so Iām not gona correct you here. I think once I saw a post here where somebody took a still and pointed out the casings, but canāt remember who/when.
Donāt forget I captured my monitor playing the tmz website with my cellphone on Aug1st and posted it on Chrisā Xā¦
Just click and scroll upā¦
https://x.com/Danilo8313/status/1819202486411895149
@kwaka
1 Like
Yes, at 00:08s almost in front of the two northern barns. I need an estimate for the heights of the wires above ground and also the distances from the electric pole to the attachment points on both barns (#16 and #15), so if you could do two high contrast shots: one from west to east facing the barn front, and one north-south along the barn front or viceversa. But please take care of you. If you have any bad feeling that day then just let it go.
1 Like
Hi @kwaka,
Any comment to my question would be highly appreciatedā¦ 
I can see it. It is frame 171 where the shot starts. two frames later can first see the ejected case more clearly around the same height as the top of the glasses. The next frame gets hard to see the way it tumbles. The next two frames is more clear again as it hangs around the same height. The case then starts to drop after that.
I donāt know about TMZ changing their video at the following link. I donāt see any hard evidence for it at this time.
In the video at the top in that link, the enhanced frames are at the end of the video. That is what put me on to what to look for in the original frames,
When I first came across the original version a couple of weeks ago, I did see some of the ejected case, but not enough to define a clear path of where it went. How the case tumbles and does get harder to see is some frames also threw me off at the time.
Since coming across the enhanced version it made defining the path of the case much easier. The data is consistent with the original version.
1 Like
I understand, so by saying ācoming accross the enhanced versionā is what you stated before, you downloaded it on Sundayā¦ Thanks for your feedback.
I have no further questionsā¦
1 Like
So your theory is that a 2nd shooter would line up behind Crooks, directly in line of the probable incoming counter fire?
You think a professional would voluntarily put themselves at risk in such a way?
Doubt it.
3 Likes
@bumblebeeez but he isnāt in the line of fire is he? Unless Trump is shooting back himself? Invisible to one sniper team and off the line of the other. And we havenāt established that SS arenāt complicit anyway. He is behind a ridge except for a few seconds and even then Crooks is the one everyone sees.
Where is this mysterious sniper who no one has identified?
And it really doesnāt matter what the rules of professionalism say if the audio puts him there. Give me something real.
OK, here is the breaking news you have all been waiting forā¦ sharpen your pencils and turn on your brainā¦ itās peak prosperity citizen investigation time!
For the record, this is all speculation, but you can decide for yourself if my analysis seems to point out serious discrepancies:
Having debated heavily with daniloraf about the first shot on the roof from the famous TMZ video last week and it seems eligibly that somebody changed the video over the weekend. The newest version seems to be edited giving more dynamics to Crooks body, it made me think. If this is the case, then anything is possible.
So we are fortunate to have two videos to work with. One being the famous TMZ video from Ross, the other one from Jon Malis. For those who want to follow my analysis step by step, please go to this link to get the TMZ video:
And you can find the Jon Malis video in HD here:
So we have the original TMZ video that was made by Mike DiFrischia or letās call him āRossā where you can see Crooks on the roof and we have the Jon Malis video which is extremely interesting, itās kind of a ābehind the sceneā version of Rossās video. Just like when Toto pulls the curtain in the wizard of OZā¦.
So, if everything is consistent, the two videos match up perfectly. Finding discrepancies are golden nuggets for citizen investigators like usā¦
So what I did was I time stamped both videos with Microsoft Clipchamp setting Zero seconds at the first shot. For those people who are lazy and trust my videos you can go ahead and download them here so that we are all working with the same videos:
These two videos with timestamps are a very powerful tool to cross check the consistency of both videos. Theoretically they have to match 100%
So, I already found one inconsistency by seeing a frame in Rossās phone in Jons video at a certain time, but when I crossed checked that time in Rossās video it was inconsistent. You can have a look at my post here:
So I was motivated to take a bigger dive into this method, trying to seek for more inconsistencies.
One thing that always bugged me was the fact that the guy with the red cap is taking a perfect video throughout the entire 10 shots and nobody has found out who that guy is? The only focus on the entire Internet is Rossās video. But are we really sure that it was Ross who was filming the TMZ video? Letās investigate together and give both Ross and letās call the other guy Redcap the benefit of the doubt.
One thing that came to my mind was to simply compare the audio in Rossās video. Listening to the stereo sound we could hear if the screaming lady comes from the left channel or the right channel, because she is standing right in the middle of the tree. So, if the sound comes from the left channel, it will favor redcap and vis versa for Ross.
Ahhh, too bad the TMZ video is mono! But if you listen to Jons video it is stereo, but the channels have been reversed. This put me off for quite a while. So listen to Jons video with a headphone put on backwards. This might also be important information for the people analyzing the bullet sounds. I donāt know if you take stereo into account, but if so, please invert!
I would claim that at 44 seconds into Jons video we hear a conversation between Jons and Ross:
Jons left channel: What a f. sick world
Ross right channel: Dude, thatās exactly why we need f. Trump here!
I recognize Rossās voice from the Interview he gave.
This is just for you guys to get a feeling how we can use stereo to evaluate things, and you can check if your headphone is mounted correctly.
I found the most interesting part of both videos to be at 10 seconds after the shooting up to 17 seconds after the shooting. The reason why is that Jon is right there back behind Redcap and Ross. We have to put ourselves in the position of the guy who is filming. At 12:36 in Jons video you can clearly see crooks facing all of the people staring at them.
I would get scared at that moment, so looking at the Rosses video starting at 10 seconds I assume the guy taking the video sees Crooks looking at him. So, what is your first reaction? You worn your family or other people around, which exactly happens at 12:86, you can hear the guy who is making the video: he is turning this way be careful
Who is the guy talking to?
If it is Redcap he is talking to his wife and child behind the tree.
If it is Ross he is warning the people around him, because according to his interview, his wife had gone to look for police inforcement.
So, everybody look at the sequence of Rossās video from 10 seconds to 17 seconds. Obviously, the guy turns away from his position and looks towards his family or friends losing focus.
So, we can fix the following time line:
At 10 seconds he probably sees Crooks and the camera already starts to go down out of focus. You can see the wall
12:86 He says: Heās turning this way
13:00 he is all the way down focused on the grass
15:00 he starts to go up with the camera again
17:00 he is back on the roof and one second later shot 10 is fired
So, keep this sequence in mind and letās go to Jons video and compare this time line:
So, at 9:66 we can see Redcapā¦ OK, lets see if something is consistent with the video. Well, it is a bit short but if we compare the two screen shots it seems that the camera is on its way down, but too short to draw a definitive conclusion, but also no damming evidence that he could not be the guy who is making this videoā¦.
OK, letās go onā¦
12:86, Jon is right behind Ross, but shouldnāt we see him turn back and hearing him say: He is turning this way be careful? Maybe Jon is too far away and we just canāt hear him, but it is strange, you donāt see Ross moving and you donāt see him talkingā¦. You do however see in second 17 how the wife and daughter of redcap are clearly hiding behind the tree. Therefore, I would give a 60% for Redcap and 40% for Ross on this oneā¦.
Letās go on:
Now this one we have to take frame by frame, because it is very important:
12:36 we can see Rossās camera, it is more or less focused on the scene
12:46 the camera position of Ross is already way off the scene?
12:50, 12:53, 12:56, 12:60, 12:63 the position gets worse? What is going on here? Why is Ross filming the tree?
12:66, 12:69, 12:73 12:76 it gets worse and 12:80 you can really see he is filming the tree.
13:66 might give us the answer: he is holding on to the tree with his left hand, probably he lost his balance standing on the root of the tree or something.
This is of course not consistent with the TMZ video. We should be seeing a constant steady down position, instead we see how Ross fumbles. I would give Ross 10% here
OK letās continue:
15:43 Ross is back in position and what do we have here, a perfect view of both guys shooting the video!
Now we know at 15 seconds the video goes from the grass back up to the roof. So, we have a showcase showdown! May the real video shooter please stand up! The guy who lifts the camera in the next 2 seconds is the guy who makes the videoā¦ā¦
15:46: ahhh itās looking good for redcapā¦ā¦
15:50 no frame changeā¦ whatās going on?
15:53 oh no, what happened? Redcap is out of the race. He got canceled!
15:56 no frame changeā¦.
15:60 no frame changeā¦
15:63 no frame changeā¦.
15:66 no frame change ā¦ what is going on???
15:69 finally a frame change, (Ross is not moving his camera towards the roof)
15:89 Ross still does not move his position and hey Redcap is back in the game, but unfortunately, we missed out on the show case showdown.
We can go on and on but looking at the above I would give 90% for redcap and 10% for Ross.
Then I made a voice analyzing comparison. Ross having a quite bassy voice it should be easy to determine the difference. So, I took the voice from, redcap since I am almost sure he is the guy who took the video:
Heās turning this way
And got a frequency of 260 Hz
And taking Rossā voice:
Dude, thatās exactly why we need f. Trump here
I got a frequency of 155 Hz
I will let the audio specialists double check that one.
The fact that all cell phone screens seem to have been covered with black paint, somebody for sure is trying to cover up something in this video.
It is up for debate, I have done my work. I judge 90% Redcap and 10% Ross. What do you guys think?
I just noticed, we have conflict between two three types of evidence.
- The casing placement was three on the left and five on the right.
- The TMZ video shows the first 3 shots would have been ejecting casings to the right.
- The audio shows the first 3 shots have a different sound profile than the last 5 shots.
Those donāt work together. If the first shot was ejected to the right, thus the next two also. There should be 3 casing on the right. The theory is that he then turned his gun sideways and used a side mounted sight to get off 5 more rounds, which would have ejected 5 casings to the left.
1 Like
Having constant cabin noise in a wide frequency band (but not all frequency bands) completely go missing once. OK weird, was there a glitch in the recording? Now have it go missing for eight similar blips in five or so seconds. What is going on, sound is clearly being recorded and no one is in the car? Now have those blips line up with eight identical sounds that donāt max the amps, but the missing noise isnāt as prominent where the high frequency tail of those sounds has to overlap with noise gaps in other instances (shots 6-8), and confirm that there are no similar dropouts over a very long track with many loud noises. Brutally wrong. Suspicious. Oh, and the eight sounds are supposed to represent eight different shots being fired, which in every other audio of the event show as unique signatures, but these are all clones.
Now have it be the only law enforcement recording of the shots that has been released, released very late, and the only recording which can be matched to the podium to support the law enforcement narrative.
My suspicion meter is off the charts.
3 Likes
Ref Crawl Space
The point is that IF you believe or know or prove that a Professional was in situ, in addition to āthe dead person on the roofā (and the other āsuspiciousā person they weāre looking for) then the Professional would be located at least one foot back, out of sight.
However, it doesnāt necessarily follow that someone was in the roof crawl space - in 100 degrees heat - waiting. One Rifle could be mounted and remotely controlled, enabling it to have been placed in situ much earlier, controlled from nearby and then quickly collected afterwards.
A position directly behind āthe dead person on the roofā in order to obsficate the Scene IS perfectly reasonable. Remember the key point is that a Professional was hidden at all times.
We could ask G what he thinks about such scenariosā¦
We can also investigate the Autopsy Report for āthe person that died on the roofā and note ballistics data, entry/exit points etc etc.
Video Clips
The video analysis of āthe dead person of the roofā is excellent here, so thank you all for these important data and all of your analysis. It is very much appreciated.
2 Likes
Well, what I mean is, if it was just a cut and paste, Iād expect for the weird muted parts of the spectrum to be totally identical. If they chopped out the stuff they didnāt like and then pasted some stuff, it seems like they did some smearing afterward. (I still find it totally weird that a loud sound is supposed to have somehow muted a big region)
1 Like
but look at what they pastedāan original report with no high frequency content followed by an echo region that had high frequency content. They actually did overlap these signatures additively, so where the pastes overlap, the echo region helps hide the missing frequencies in the report region.
3 Likes
Ah, OK, that might explain my confusion. So does it seem possible to do a kind of proof of screwing around if we take the first suspected paste and subtract it from the track or something? Like, can we extract the gunshot foley and leave a nearly nulled track? I think it would help us persuade people if we could do something along those lines.
I think the first shot as a clip probably did not overlap any of the others. Subtraction could be fairly complete if you could accurately line it up.
I wish I had software available to clip the samples of the first shot and then perform a correlation of that with the entire region of audio samples. I think you would see almost perfect correlation at the position of each report, like 0.99x, but lower for the last ones because of the overlapped shots.
1 Like
I look forward to viewing your 2 videos you posted but unfortunately for me Iām at work using a work computer that I cant download outside videos.
I will attempt to use my cell phone but I hate having to squint to view a video on such a small screen. But I will make an effort.
I will check them out eventually.
What makes you think the guy in the cowboy hat is Mike DiFrischia?