Are we sure on the timing on that?
I thought that the body cam/roof peek guy was located much further east at the time the first shot rings out.
Roger, I looked at boosted-copâs body-cam, you know when he walks around to the front after finding Crooks on the roof⊠and⊠Window 3 was opened a mere 1 second before shot 1! CONFIRMED. See images below:
The upper image shows the window with a reflection two seconds before shot 1. The lower image shows the window cracked around one second before shot 1. That would take two people, a sniper on the rifle already sighted in and someone to operate the window.
The two images below follow the images above in time but still are in the one second time frame before shot 1. Both showing window 3 now open. The last image is clearest.
I have around 20 images in the 10 seconds before shot 1 and they all show the window with the upper reflection until one second before the first shot.
This is why the sniper missed. He sighted in through the glass with the window closed (scope mounted wide on right side of rifle?) and immediately wanted to shoot the second the window was opened. He never expected to miss, and with a scope mounted on 5" arms to the right of the rifle, it probably got slightly torqued with the first recoil and was then on slightly off target. He would also expect he was elevated so his line of fire was at the very top of the window.
Not a chance in hell a trained sniper would ever make that mistake.
1 Like
Hey Bumblebeeez,
Your hypothesis seems to be exactly the way it happend! Congratulations!
Please everybody go to the source video here:
pause the video at 2:28 min and work with , and . keys to watch it frame by frame back and forth.
At 2:30 you see the first shot come out of window 3, immediately the guy starts running!
Hey Phase 5,
Nice analyzing!
Can it be that Steward does catch the first shot with his camera, but simply the sound is offset by 1 second? It would make sense, because Steward is already ducking and is filming the trees when you hear the first shot. So, we get the following sequence in the original Stewards video:
- Visual shot is fired
- Crooks ducks after 1 second filming the trees
- Audio shot is heard
Not hearing the shot in this video, why does he duck in advance filming the trees?
If you would offset the audio by 1 second, everything would match up:
- Visual shot is fired, and audio shot is heard
- Crooks ducks after 1 second filming the trees
@pk2019, changing the file extension on the .wav file did not work, the website was still detecting the file type and rejecting it.
I did try to look in detail at all of your graphs. To summarize:
For channels 1 and 3, almost perfect correlation between the shots/echoes within each channel.
For channel 2, which had much more additive noise, the shot-to-shot correlations were still high and consistently so, but not .99-ish.
Even though three microphones were located in a same enclosed space, their respective recordings of shot sounds does not correlate well between the tracks, particularly between the second track and either of the others. This makes no sense.
1 Like
I tried that too ⊠and found it exhausting. My tactic is to fit the graph to screen width for an overview, and then scroll to the shots and zoom in.
They could be nicier, leaner and more comfortable. Generating and plotting all these graphs took 11 hours on a single processor, and almost all of the spent processor time was due to the lattice/cairo graphics system.
That was a real surprise! Should I post the R-script as preformatted text, so potentially anyone willing could look into it for obvious mistakes? Generally, track 1 & 3 seem to be written at a much lower level (gain). After having uploaded these files, I amplified the sample regions in audacity by 13 dB to measure the start offsets to .1 ms; the signal grew visually clear, no noise. Re the source 4 audio: it still worked when I tried that a few days ago using a compressed file.
edit: I just skimmed through the graphs again I wondered about that 200 Hz pattern at the beginning and at the end as well as between s123 and s45678 in the correlation panel.
edit: meant as reply to @offtheback
Just one more thing. You know, those little things bother me a lot. (Det. Lt. Columbo)
The first âperiodâ does not fit. We learnt the system will be in steady state after a characteristic time of the filter. We try to fit the shifted phase of the attenuated signal. However, the modulated Heaviside function starts at the first period. The sound of the shot arrived at that time. But the mistake is about only 50 sample time, it will not change a lot.
Remark:
Many cases it is important, what sentece to start with.
- Calculation by Ptolemy (PtolemaĂźos) was so accurate, people for tousand years beleived that those circles do really exist in the sky. (It is epistemology, but I prefer ontology.)
- Gell-Mann have figured out the âtripodâ math of quarks, but nobody on the Earth was able to catch any. Therefore I think the group theory is just a general tool, which was the Fourier-series behind Ptolemyâs calculation. (I wonât dig deeper here.)
I think you missed the whole point of what was said about a âwet streets cause rainâ story. That you read a article you can see the outlandish mistakes. Yet turn the page and believe everything written on the next page. 87% of the news is made up by the reporters misunderstanding what they have been told.
1 Like
Not so quick. He did a shot line up with a side mount scope through the glass and then in the last second he could have switched to his main scope so he could see and shoot through the window edge at it cracked open. It was all too hurried. He missed. What he didnât do was acquire his sight line and shoot in one second. He must have been lined up before the window opened.
I remember on the day of the shooting that the name, âMaxwell Yearickâ was first mentioned.
Since then it has basically faded away & only Crooks name remains.
They both share similar characteristics. Also, coincidentally, Yearick supposedly resided in Arizona.
My question: Has anyone found Yearick since the shooting? I would think he would be revealed if he is still alive. Itâs like the dude has evaporated.
2 Likes
I looked at the Stewart video. He is bouncing the camara wildly but does catch window 3 one second before the shot, and I could see no change in the status from previous images. But there is no reflection in window 3 to track due to Stewartâs position.
Not sure about the audio shift. Maybe.
No offense about the Yearick theory, but suppose we found out 100% sure that the dead guy on the roof was Yearick instead of Crooks â what then? I genuinely donât see how it helps us.
In my view, we should stay laser-focused on what we can do to push and pressure people to crack the case. In my mind, cracking the case just means interviewing the key witnesses. If somebody with power can compel Nicol, Murcko and/or D. King to answer questions, the official story will collapse and it will become obvious how weaselly the authorities have been.
I find it absolutely excruciating how close we are to blowing the lid off this thing. Today I wrote to Josh Hawley and Judicial Watch about how easily this thing can be solved.
1 Like
True that.
I guess itâs just another rabbit hole.
It would be nice if Yearick would come forward or some investigative reporter would locate him.
1 Like
Yeah, thatâs true, it would be nice to have it resolved. It could actually lead somewhere. Iâm not familiar at all with Antifaâs scene, though. Yearick probably has an alias heâs known by, and itâs probably obvious whether heâs dead or alive if you know the right communities, but I donât.
Brian, there may be also a lawyer engaged by the family of Corey Comparatore. There is also Joseph Feldman, attorney at the Law Offices of Max C. Feldman, LLC, Pittsburgh, who represents two people who were critically wounded on Jul 13 (by the way, is âwoundedâ a usual term outside of a military context?). In another article he said he will apply any legal mean to uncover the truth.
Audrey Conklin articles at Fox News are rather informative.
1 Like
Thanks, Iâll get in touch with them.
He might be well paid for not to show up for a while.