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.
1 Like
48000 sps
Crosscorrelation for the first 3 shots:
There are many micro-correlations. 
What the hell, uncertainty of wave mechanics?
OK, will do. I turned my computer back on! I will make the vent shooter a purple line. And I will add a few dimensions.
1 Like
I got an idea, but it might be painful.
Why these guys use headphones in the studio?
Mr. Trump didnât have. He was just speaking into the mic.
However, there where big loudspeakers. Guess what?
Enhanced echo-cancellation?
Maybe. But what does it with the snick-boom sounds?
Perhaps this echo cancellation modifies the gunshot sound registrations.
I donât know, but maybe.
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 âŠ)
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 NTDâs mic on the press riser have picked up a supersonic crack? If youâre 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.
And here is the data I gleaned from analyzing the video:
NTD Audio Timestamps.pdf (39.4 KB)
5 Likes
I call that âteam workâ. That is what most of us are here for.
2 Likes
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: Trumpâs ear, the railing of the bleacher and ended up in the hydraulics of the JCB beam:
- the grazing of Trumpâs ear did not change the bulletâs path
- if the bullet scratched the railing of the right bleachers, that would certainly deviate the bulletâs path and could result in a grey puffy cloud, but it would not really disintegrateâŠ
- 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)
Hi MacD,
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.
2 Likes
super! now it is clear! 
The position of the person on the roof in Copenhaverâs video doesnât 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 (Copenhaverâs 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.
4 Likes
If I find a photo from after the assassination in which Trumpâs ear is not covered by hair, I will improve the montage.
The green line separates the adhesive surface from the white cellulose on the underside of the lower patch.
Normally, plasters are applied so that the wound is in the center of the white pulp. The wound should then be in the red circle.
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.
Crooksâ 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 carâs 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 Stewartâs smartphone was in the possession of the FBI for several days.
1 Like
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 donât know if thatâs true. Anyway, Iâm just saying I donât have a strong opinion on this.
1 Like
Well, you obviously have a big scoop here. Why donât 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 evidenceâŠ
So have you tried going to the press?
In my opinion, almost all of them belong to the controlled opposition.
The guy with the red baseball cap who filmed Crooks could get money for his movie.
Iâm guessing at least $10.000, maybe a lot more.
There is no rock solid evidence for the kayfabe theory. So far I have only shown that it has not yet been refuted. So it could be true.
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.
Youâre correct, I just rewatched some scene videos and the fence immediately south of the AGR appears to be 6â tall.
Thanks for charting that. Iâm 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 thatâs 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 itâs a variable.
- At what range was the supposed rifle zeroed? Thatâs 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 Trumpâs ear and could quite possibly deflect, yaw, etc. off course. Itâs certainly possible other bullets may have impacted something before reaching their destination - we just donât 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 Trumpâs podium, Trumpâs 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. Thatâs about 10 variables to which there is no uniform agreement.
Itâs an interesting and important exercise but has its limitations due to so many variables.
1 Like
As a fellow subscriber to the high-roof theory as very plausible (and an ideal location for a professional), we are mostly in agreement. However I think for ballistics and evidentiary reasons post assassination, both guns would likely have fired the same caliber to aid in a coverup and 1-shooter theory to be plausible.
I am conflicted because I do believe I see recoil and a shell casing in the TMZ ârossâ video corresponding with the 1st shot. However, the timing between boosted officer allegedly interfering with Crooks, and then him getting into position, seems to be too abbreviated for Crooks to have crawled into place and taken aim and fired⊠We see almost no movement there at the end of the TMZ video so itâs all very hard to tell whatâs going onâŠ
None of this elaborate âfull autoâ or âjitter fingerâ or whatever is necessary. A commercial off-the-shelf AR15 will easily and relatively accurately fire 5 shots in 1/2 second splits (time between shots). Crooks had been to the range 40+ times in the prior year, so he was more than capable of the performance shown. And the rifle is easily capable of that. It was NOT a full auto rifle and people just need to accept that.
So why were these 5 shots so wild? Well, Trump was by then out of view, possibly totally obscured by SS and the crowds in the bleachers (Trump went to the ground, totally blocked from view). Shots were perhaps in haste, anger, frustration, who knows, thatâs all speculation. But the did land in the general area.
I lean in this direction too. This was a range suitable for Crooks, and he was following guidance and instructions to get into this position. High Roof shooter could monitor his location getting into place, and adjust himself left or right as necessary, totally blind to all the counter sniper teams. Take 3 shots, and exfil leaving Crooks to fire his volley and be eliminated.
For all we know Crooks may have thought the first 3 shots were counter snipers firing at him!