I’m fairly sure that Trump’s actual on-stage arrival time varies quite a lot from one rally to the next. So, precise timing well in advance would not be possible. The instructions would have needed to be something flexible like, “Okay, as soon as you hear Trump begin to speak, do this …”
Source 2 (“He’s got a Gun” - Credit TMX) has sufficient quality to allow us to hear the crack-boom times. There is a significant difference between shots 9 & 10. This tells us that the ESU officer on the lawn did not fire shot 10.
I have seen solid plexiglass and screen dividers in patrol cars. But neither are sealed and block sound. That would be bad for the situational awareness of the officer. I think the recording might pick up noises too quiet for the driver to hear.
I have incorporated a new data source into my TDOA model.
A few things I really like about this source:
It is stationary.
Because it is farther from the bullet path, the crack-boom time difference is shorter than what the Podium mic recorded (144 ms vs. 221 ms for shot 1). This makes it possible to hear all of the booms (none are masked by cracks).
It is a live-stream recording from Aug 13, so whatever your opinion of NTD is, they could not have tampered with it after the fact. (Now, Google on the other hand …)
However, one thing that has me puzzled is that I can clearly hear the crack for shot 6. This is the crack that was absent from the Podium video, and because of that, we assumed that it was the shot that hit Corey in the head and did not continue on its path. However, if that was the case, how could NTD’s mic on the press riser have picked up a supersonic crack? If you’re interested and have the time to listen to it yourself, please do and see what you think.
Anyway, I thought I would throw this data source over the fence to you guys and gals to see if you would like to poke any holes in it like what you did with the police cruiser.
why would you assume that the puffy cloud equals to the disintegration of the first bullet?
I am not sure which bullet injured David Dutch.
first, I thought that he got injured by a ricochet of the first bullet, or by a piece of the railing that got detached after the interaction with the first bullet.
Mike Bell and myself (even though we never communicated ) assume that the first bullet interacted with three points of interest: Trump’s ear, the railing of the bleacher and ended up in the hydraulics of the JCB beam:
the grazing of Trump’s ear did not change the bullet’s path
if the bullet scratched the railing of the right bleachers, that would certainly deviate the bullet’s path and could result in a grey puffy cloud, but it would not really disintegrate…
if the bullet penetrated the railing at a nearly 90 degrees angle, the bullet would not deviate much (I shared the evidence for this several times where the type of bullet I expect to have been used penetrated 10 sheets of 1/16 solid steel without deviating from its path)
I am not quite following what we are trying to simulate here, but before I get involved, the positoin of Crooks circled in red is the walking position and not the shooting position. The shooting position is much more to the right. Once you agee with the below photo I will try to understand what you want us to do.
The position of the person on the roof in Copenhaver’s video doesn’t matter. The fixed point is Copenhaver himself - either at camera level or preferably adjusted to abdominal level where he was shot. From that fixed point and with all the other obstacles shown in the video one could determine which shooting lanes were open and which were blocked.
For example, in the following still photo, a shooting lane from Window 3 to Copenhaver would obviously be blocked by the crowd, and even more so if one took a perspective two feet lower (Copenhaver’s abdomen).
Can you match or superimpose this photo onto your CAD model? If so, this could a) confirm or correct your model, and b) allow you to then lower perspective a couple of feet to find the possible paths of the bullet that hit Copenhaver.
The decisive factor is not whether it would have been more difficult, but only whether it would have been possible at all.
From the rear two-story building, the shots could have been fired through a small hole by a preset machine.
Crooks’ gun could have been rigged so that the machine fires as soon as Crooks pulls the trigger.
That should be technically possible.
In the TMZ video, the time interval between the ejection of the shell casing and the sound is so great that the sound-producing shot could have been fired from the rear two-story building.
As has been mentioned here in the forum, the shots on the police car’s soundtrack have probably been manipulated.
The shots could have been heard on 2 bodycam videos in the parking lot, but the soundtrack was removed.
Dave Stewart’s smartphone was in the possession of the FBI for several days.
Maxwell Yearick was originally identified as the shooter by several sources. A lot of people think the picture of the dead guy looks more like Maxwell Yearick. Supposedly Maxwell Yearick has been reported as missing by family, but don’t know if that’s true. Anyway, I’m just saying I don’t have a strong opinion on this.
Well, you obviously have a big scoop here. Why don’t you go to all the networks, as well as all the alternate liberal news sites, and see if you can go on and spread the news? Maybe you can get some money for this!
Surely SOMEONE would want to air this, after all you have rock solid evidence, yes, and the news networks would have NOTHING to fear from being sued when they have good evidence…
I am not at my computer but I believe the podium recording also has a snick for six. Because the Mach cone angle is like 24 degrees, a large part of the shock wave that will reach the podium mike is already set up by the time that bullet unfortunately hit a victim. So it still gets there, it is just a bit weaker.
Thanks for charting that. I’m a subscriber to the high-roof theory. The problem with all of these elevation and windage trajectories is too many unknown variables that would individually and certainly collectively materially alter the elevation and windage trajectories. These include but not an exhaustive list:
The exact weight of the bullets, which may not be uniform (e.g. 55gr, 62gr, 75gr, 77gr, other)? A sloppy shooter might have different ones loaded as well.
The exact manufacturer and bullet design, amount of powder, etc.
Rifle barrel twist rates, commonly 1:7, 1:8, or 1:9 but could be other, so that’s another variable. Likewise, barrel coating (bare steel, chrome, nitride, etc.).
Exact wind, at the exact moments, which could have changed between shots. It was gusty that day.
Air temperature, moisture, etc. We can probably nail that down but it’s a variable.
At what range was the supposed rifle zeroed? That’s going to make a big difference on vertical trajectories (point of aim vs point of impact, holdover, etc.).
Amount of deflection, we know at least 1 bullet hit Trump’s ear and could quite possibly deflect, yaw, etc. off course. It’s certainly possible other bullets may have impacted something before reaching their destination - we just don’t know. WE DO KNOW that several others (not heavily reported as injuries) in fact received minor injuries from bullet fragments after their final impacts.
7A: Extrapolating on this, if for instance someone were firing thru the AGR vents, a vent may have been clipped pushing the bullet slightly off course.
If two different rifles were in fact used, we have yet more variables (bullets, rifling type, etc.) at play.
Seems to be a lack of consensus on the exact height of Trump’s podium, Trump’s posture and ear position, height of bleachers and spectators, and all variables on the AGR height at several points factoring it rests in a depression, etc. That’s about 10 variables to which there is no uniform agreement.
It’s an interesting and important exercise but has its limitations due to so many variables.
) assume that the first bullet interacted with three points of interest: Trump’s ear, the railing of the bleacher and ended up in the hydraulics of the JCB beam:
