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 “ross” 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 it’s all very hard to tell what’s going on…
None of this elaborate “full auto” or “jitter finger” 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, that’s 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!
There definitely was at least 1 gunman and 8 shots fired at or near Trump, and bullets or fragments injured many people, killed 1, and a bullet was captured on photograph passing Trump’s head.
No sane person would stand there and allow a rifleman to fire at him and regardless of ones’ opinion of Trump he’s not a lunatic madman that would engage in this lethal nonsensical conspiracy. And he was leading in poles anyway.
Those with the most greatest motives to “out” this theory and ruin Trump, have all agreed that Trump was, in fact, shot in the ear. The SS and FBI has testified to this under oath. And they hate him, and would relish using such a staged event that got 1 person killed and many wounded, to ruin and jail Trump.
The silence of these enemies of Trump is absolute proof he got shot, regardless of alleged Trump “ear” pictures which could easily be manipulated.
So please pedal nonsense somewhere else. This is a serious adult discussion.
I’m not convinced the South Barn countersnipers are the ones that took out Crooks. I’ve heard Trump say twice that it was a 400-yard shot and I heard the Blackwater guy say the same thing. I’m betting they know something we don’t.
Why?
Why should that be relevant if it had been possible?
Who?
Were these eyewitnesses able to rule out blanks?
If the whole thing was planned as a kayfabe, it wouldn’t have been difficult to place a few controlled eyewitnesses near Building 6.
Maybe even the cameramen were placed and that’s why their footage hasn’t been released yet.
Injured and dead do not contradict the kayfabe theory.
Was this photo published in raw format? Michael Yon claims that a forgery can be recognized in the raw format.
Michael Yon (combat photographer) talks about this photo from minute 52:00
a professional sniper could have reliably and safely shot 1 meter above trump.
the position could have been chosen so that the roof of building 6 would have been a physical barrier between the gun and Trump.
Trump himself could have published a photo of his ear. But he didn’t.
Dr. Zsolt, I have Richard Feynman on line 3 calling to ask if you’re uncertain about uncertainty. (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Those elevations are the most suspect now… After that is settled, which should be easy given drones could very well land at those places and we could get elevations for everything, then we would have I imagine windage and uncertainty about the positioning of the podium, bleachers, etc… @rough_country_gypsy did you happen to land the drone on the ground on the bleachers and podium locations by any chance?
I agree with all points (except 7a… it would be so close and powerful we would see some event happening there), and your mention of it being an important exercise. Especially the zero range and ammo. Those excel files consider the following assumptions (and I didn’t check other combinations).
a) 55 grains projectiles, the most common. b) muzzle velocity of 995 m/s, from the manufacturer of the ammo I use and get hits with. c) 100 yard zero, because his range’s website mentions zeroing targets at 50, 100 and 187 yards. It seemed so specific that I thought they don’t hold the line for people to go put up targets at different ranges.
We could plot all the combinations of zero and ammo, but time-wise I would rather do it after we get the elevations right. (my wife is already about to go ballistic on me).
have been considering only 55grains ammo with the speed of ammo that I use and get hits with.
Very plausible plan. To add, Crook’s range doesn’t have targets at more than 200 yards away, I believe. Last year they installed electronic targets at 200 yards away, and other parts of the website mention zeroing targets at 50, 100 and 187 yards. Problem is, the casing ejection and recoil video I’ve been seeing since Aug 1st.
My first belief from the early days was that snipers shot twice, killing him in shot 9 and then hitting him again with #10 just to make sure. Then fom channel Mr. Guns and Gear we got that photo of a sniper in the barn, then I thought… ok, so SS Hercules shot them again to save face and look like they actually did anything. But then there’s the whole audio TDOA analysis. It does seem to have some bias to it, but looks good. Be that as it may, assuming people have a tendency to round numbers up, would it be reasonable to say it would be ‘up to’ 400 yards? Say, something between 200-400 yards. There are only a handful of vantage points on the scenario… Would the audio match?
No, I checked the podium recording again, and there is nothing audible. Snick 6 should be heard 180 ms after Snick 5, but there is no sound until 211 ms, which is the muzzle report from Snick 5. (Well, there is a sound @ 90ms, but that’s the echo from the sound system caused by Snick 5, I believe.)
In the NTD video, Snick 6 is noticeably quieter than all the other snicks. So, your explanation fits that observation.
I’m not so sure. We have 3 videos that contradict one another. I apologize for not having the specific times, I’m going from memory.
Video 1: The boosted officer video shows some interaction and then officer runs around panic mode to the front of the AGR. Firing begins about 30 seconds post-interaction.
Video 2: The Dave Stewart video does not show Crooks or his rifle in position clearly.
Video 3: We have a few moments showing Crooks not moving or crawling into position at the end…
That’s a LOT of activity for Crooks in these final 30 seconds or less. Warding off a boosted officer, low crawling on a hot metal roof in shorts and t-shirt, taking careful aim, and firing. While keeping low enough to not present a large target initially.
Not knowing the exact grade is not as problematic as one might suspect. Certain dimensions ARE known with accuracy and can be projected with accuracy out to the bleachers. For example the height of the building and slope of the roof is fairly certain. Thus I know Crooks line of fire is 6 ft above a shooter’s using vent 3. Since they cross at Trumps ear at a know distance, I know with 98% certainty that the vent shooter’s trajectory is 13 to 14" above Crooks at the South Bleacher corner. The ground elevations do not matter for that calculation.
Similarly, Even if we allow the grades to be off by 2 ft. (1 foot either way), we still know the two fence lines do not obscure a vent shooter’s line of fire. I have tried to express this with confidence percentages in my drawing. I also know certain 2nd shooter locations that are being considered simply do not work. Limited information still allows certain conclusions to have 90%+ confidence.
My pessimism about Google ground elevations is not shared by others. But since I have ordered surveys and still got information up to a foot off, I can’t imagine Google being better than an engineer in the field.
We live in a world of uncertainly. Reasonable conclusions can still be reached.
Do you ignore evidence that does not fit your narrative?
We are here in a citizen investigation group and driven by facts.
Mike DiFrischia seemingly the person who filmed the famous TMZ movie with Crooks on the roof, fumbles his camera at exactly 12:80 seconds after loosing his balance (maybe off the root of the tree) His camera is directly facing the tree and not the roof of building 6. We should see this sequence in the movie, but we don’t! This is proof, he is not the guy who is filming, it is “RedCap” guy. My post is the longest one I have ever done in this forum, but I had to, to be as transparent as possible. Please everybody spend a little time and go have a look for yourself and judge for yourself:
I don’t have a “narrative,” and the allegation is offensive. I want the objective plain truth, whether it’s 1 or multiple shooters, who was involved, whether inside job or not, etc.
I did try to digest your extremely long post but it was too cumbersome and meandering, so I gave up. I couldn’t or didn’t find a concise point but just random questions or ramblings. Perhaps post a more concise question or point and I can go back and attempt to answer.
