Audio & Video of the Assassination Attempt

[greg_n]

Ray, I think my TDOA results have something like +/- 10 yards of error, so please don’t read too much into the fact that the shots appear to “walk” toward the window.

I haven’t seen John Cullen’s analysis on that. Please provide a link and I will check it out. However, the audio quality of these cell phones is not very impressive. So, personally, I don’t read anything into hearing tonal change between groups of shots.

As to the assertion that the shots came from the first floor window, not the roof, that seems highly unlikely to me. Wouldn’t the dozens of people standing there have noticed that? Also, the line of sight from there is obstructed:

[elizabethturner]

You’ve made a compelling observation about the lady in the camo cap and her reaction in the ABC News video. Her shocked expression indeed suggests she noticed something significant before Trump’s own reaction. This detail adds weight to the argument against the “blood packet theory,” highlighting the need for a thorough review of all evidence. It’s similar to how a houseofparty.com event benefits from every detail, like a well-arranged balloon garland, being carefully considered to ensure the event’s success. Every small element can contribute to a clearer understanding of the bigger picture.

[greg_n]

@vegaspatriot I used the onset of each shot to be consistent with the timing. I zoomed-in to the millisecond level to discern where the waveform first started, and then I played the audio at 0.2x speed to confirm I placed my marker in the correct spot.

I just ran an experiment and found that a timing error of 10 milliseconds results in a distance error of 3 meters.

Unfortunately (fortunately?), while I was modifying the Matlab code to run this test, I noticed that I had inadvertently swapped the location of the TMX and DJStewart cameras. What a stupid mistake to make. This ends up moving the position of the counter sniper 10 meters to the east. So, I’ll have to post a new video to update my findings.

[vegaspatriot]

Thank you for the detailed response with graphics! Sorry to hear about your mixup of the two recordings. I believe it was Vicero who said “To err is human.” I asked the same question to Ernst in another thread and this was his response:

Other Forensics of the Assassination Attempt

[Screenshot from 2024-07-31 15-50-59] I look for two things; highest amplitude and change of pitch. You can imagine a kind of ‘pop’ when the bullet exits the barrel. That would look like a high frequency suddenly changing to a low frequency. You can see it a little in this image, a very high frequency ramps up in amplitude and then at its max the frequency is suddenly much lower.

[raycoffin]

Thank you for that new to me video. I was able to connect the back row that came past Hercules one with the man white shirt/black shorts being carried off. Another piece of the puzzle for me.

[jpeabody]

Comments: The graphic above shows the updated position for the Source 2 (“He’s got a gun”) video/audio. The previous estimated positions for Source 2 appear to be WRONG (just to be clear - my own estimations were completely wrong).

Two persons that appear to be linked closely to the Source 2, that is yellow-cape-man and blue-shirt-Chevy-guy – can be seen in the Source 5 (Stewart) video about a minute before the shooting standing between a tree and the southwest corner of AGR BLD6. From the Source 2 audio it appears that Source 2 rapidly moved west along the fence about 50 feet before Shot 1 rang-out.

Note, the previous assumption was that Source 2 was along the other parallel fence much closer to the Trump Rally stage – from many videos at that time this appears to be impossible – since it appears that security did not allow anyone near that fence location, and you cannot see spectators at the location.

The updated position for Source 2 is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for making sense of the situation regarding the Plot to Assassinate Trump (PTAT). My preliminary updated (qualitative) assessment is:

• The updated position and audio from Source 2 now is consistent with the WAPO reported position for the (ESU) Shooter 9 that took Shot 9 at Crooks and apparently missed from about 330 feet out from near/behind the north bleachers.

• In view of the updated (much more correct) position - Source 2 provides a third (3rd) CONFIRMATORY audio data set (in addition to Sources 4 & 5) that can be used via comparative audio track analysis (2D audio forensics) to potentially confirm* the location of Shots-Shooters 1 to 8 as follows:

  • Shot 1 = Shooter 1 = location 1st south window second story AGR BLD3
  • Shot 2 = Shooter 2 = location 3rd south window second story AGR BLD3
  • Shot 3 = Shooter 3 = location 6th south window second story AGR BLD3
  • Shots 4-8 = Crooks “patsy” Shooter = ~location death position on roof of AGR BLD6

• I have only qualitatively looked at the comparative audio for Source 2/updated position – but it appears directionally consistent with my earlier posted 2D-audio analysis regarding Source 2 and 5.

The PTAT shooter hypothesis (PST-PAT shooter hypothesis) – is the default I am adopting now - that I am pressure testing going forward. The PST-PAT hypothesis is that the DS used a total of (at least) four (4) shooters - three (3) shooters for Shots 1 to 3, that is primary, second and tertiary snipers located behind the south windows of AGR BLD3 to take the “kill” Shots 1 to 3 and recruited a fourth Crooks-patsy shooter to take follow-up in the open-air rapid-fire Shots 4 to 8 to draw attention and take the blame via a fake DS sponsored “lone-shooter” narrative.

One possible scenario that can be surmised from the emerging circumstantial evidence is that at the absolute critical moment “Greg”/ESU personnel stationed on the second floor of AGR BLD3 – abandoned their posts - leaving perhaps open windows and sniper rifles in position, and then DS operators entered the abandoned post - and took Shot 1 to 3 and then left or blended-in ex post.

DISCLAIMER - This above is just a “conspiracy theory” that is consistent with much of the evidence and should not be construed as an accusation of wrongdoing or criminal activity by any person or group of persons. Anyone concerned about such speculative suppositions can easily set the record straight with adequate, facts, evidence and logical reasoning – of course (so far this has been woefully lacking).

Others that are so inclined with better tools than me – can more rigorously (quantitatively) analyze the indicated audios from Sources 2, 4 and 5 – to rule-in or rule-out the putative 4-shooter hypothesis for the PTAT. As always, I am willing to eat-humble-pie (have it put into the “red-box”).

Unpacking and disclosure of the DS tactical plan for the PTAT is important to the Great Awakening and understanding the extreme degree of malice-aforethought once-again exercised by the DS in attempting to maintain the status quo hierarchical dominance system – by using CIA or CIA adjacent “wet-works” (or the like) for political violence domestically.

Best of luck all.

pbd

[juan-rur]

This is the TV camera panel that is broadcasting the event live. It is a camera specially designed to broadcast live TV, it is quite advanced. As a peculiarity, it works with a motion detection system. That is, it does not need a person to operate the camera. She can single herself to set the target she is filming and follow it even if the character moves, with the motion sensor she will follow the character and focus, without the need for a person operating.
Another peculiarity is that the camera is remotely operated by an infrared control system. That’s why you don’t have a viewfinder to look through it and see what’s being filmed. The operator will be separated from the camera, and will be able to see what they are filming from an iPad, a laptop, or any other device. And from there it will zoom in, or other adjustments if it wants.
These cameras always have their own microphone to capture all the sound in a Open Space, and by default when they start filming they record the audio with their microphone automatically. But if we want we could override the microphone of the camera, and connect an external audio source. That is, we can tell the camera not to use its microphone, and connect the camera directly to Trump’s microphone. In this case, YES, we can tell that we are capturing the audio exactly on Trump’s microphone. Because we would be wired into Trump’s microphone.
But the camera he’s broadcasting isn’t wired to Trump’s microphone. The camera is using its own ambient microphone. In the image of the camera panel, in the “yellow box” is the external audio input connection. If the camera were to connect directly to Trump’s microphone, it would do so by inserting an audio cable into that input. “audio in”.
There are other main connections in the panel. In the “red box” the cable for the infrared receiver is connected, for remote control. The “blue box” is for connecting it to electricity power. And the “green box” is the optical output that will send the direct transmission.
In the image of the camera at the event, we can see that there is no cable connected to the audio input. Only the power cable, the IR port cable, and the optical cable in the optical output, yellow cable, are connected. But there’s nothing connected on the audio input. That means the camera is using its own ambient microphone, and it’s not connected to Trump’s microphone.

Actually, we don’t need to see that there’s no cable to know that the camera is using its own microphone. In the very sound that we heard in the video of the broadcast We can see that the sound is recorded with the camera’s own ambient microphone. We can hear just before the shots, a lady shouts: “he is on the roof”. And it is heard very loud and clear. The lady’s voice is heard, louder and clearer than Trump’s own voice. This is because the camera’s microphone is closer to the lady than to the stage. That is why we hear the lady more clearly. If the camera were connected directly to Trump’s microphone, we wouldn’t hear the lady shout “he is on the roof”.
Well, I won’t comment on this topic anymore. For me it is clear, but I did not intend to create a debate about this either. Just report to clarify a point that I thought was confusing
I hope it helps. Best regards!

[jim-bruin]

Hi Juan.

Thanks for the info.

Does the camera adjust the audio track based on the distance, so it properly syncs up with the video? If it does then as the camera moves it will adjust the audio delay. That would make the audio it records too messy for analysis.

Edit: Just took a closer look at the screenshot.

It has cables plugged into power, LAN, optical and one of the two ports next to power. Is it in audio or IR-ID? It looks like audio.

[greg_n]

So, I’ve been working on this all day, but I think I’ve finally got everything squared away now. As @jpeabody mentioned, I had Source 2 (“TMX” on my map) positioned next to the wrong tree, so I fixed that. I also had not been taking into account the movements made by DJ Stewart between the bursts of shots - now I am. I also moved “Ross” about 5 meters to the NW. These changes were worthwhile, because now I am getting a very tight cluster for the first 8 shots. Shots 9 and 10 are still in the vicinity of the light pole.

[greg_n]

And here’s a close-up of the roof:

[juan-rur]

Hmm. What you say is very interesting. I have no idea if the camera is capable of synchronizing the audio with respect to the distance of the target it is following. Maybe it will. It’s a very interesting idea. But I don’t know if I would be able to do that with an external audio source, I don’t know if I could synchronize an external audio source in real time…, or maybe the camera can! I don’t know.
The cable is a black cable, it is not very well distinguished. It seems to me that it is connected to the infrared station. In addition, the camera needs to be connected to an IR receiver to be able to be operated remotely, therefore there should be a cable in that port. It should be that black wire. But the truth is that the image is not very sharp.

[juan-rur]

Hahaha. I’m trying to zoom in on the image and scrutinize every pixel. But it’s impossible to see clearly where that damn black wire is connected…

[pk2019]

I’m regretting very much that you leave, although I do think that you’re right with your assessment of the situation. Yes, the perpetrators certainly have thought and gamed this through. The availability of an automatic gun equipped with pattern recognition and movement prediction software can be taken for granted, possibly explaining the near miss. Trump, the proverbial unpredictable.

A German blog recently expressed the view that the cabal who wanted to murder Donald Trump could be in, near or behind his own party.
I personally think that there is growing rift within the US-american ruling class, running between those who would loose almost all of their possession by an atomic war, for example houses, factories and their Mar-a-Lagos in the US, and those who believe enough gold and a bunker below a beautiful mansion with sea view in New Zealand would save them. Yet I’m sure that Russia will let them participate. Putin once said almost literally: “if there is no Russia any more, why would we still need a planet? The difference is that we would go to heaven.”

[jim-bruin]

A quick note to @cmartenson .

Great vid today. There’s just one point. You said the sound has to travel another 90 feet so the reflective surface is 90’ away. That’s not technically correct. If the reflective surface is 45’ behind the mic then it has to travel 45’ there and back, so 90’ in total. If it’s off to the side then the path from the source to the mic has to be 90’ longer than the direct path. It could also be 45’ on the far side of the shooter. The potential reflective surfaces can be found by drawing an ellipse. Put the mic and the shooter as the focal points of an ellipse and you’ve got it. You can make a fun project out of it by sticking two pins in a map, tying a loop of thread around both sides with just enough slack then using that to draw the ellipse.

[don-kress]

Ok Ok I’m back.
I guess I was so stunned and super disappointed by Chris adopting the ‘one lone wacko shooter’ hypothesis that I thought that maybe ‘they’ are so f’n good that they laid out bread crumbs that even fooled Chris.
So now, he seems to be back on track. Props to DMonk’s work on this.
Exemplary.
The possibility, and indeed I would say the probability of two shooters, one being the patsy and the killshot shooter being a pro shooter, is the most likely scenario. It’s the only way the DS would allow a ‘hit job’ such as this to proceed. Crooks, if that who it was, was the patsy. The true shooter will never be known. That’s the way ‘they’ roll…

[mtorrance]

I have used older models of that camera. That appears to be a Panasonic AW-UE150 PTZ camera. On the left bottom is a 4 pin power input and above that is ethernet which is used to control the camera from a remote panel. Next to the power input is a small IR port but it looks like the cable is in the 3.5 mm audio input next to it. Yellow cable is fiber optic cable to send audio/video over.

[pk2019]

Juan,

you said that it would be impossible to a microphone at that distance to pick up the sonic-crack of a bullet. But at what distance that camera was placed? Is this claim stemming from personal experience or do you know about experimental data?

[brian60221]

Great work. I’d like to see if I can tighten up (or just double-check) your analysis. Is it possible you could make more of your source data available?

[brian60221]

We pretty much know exactly where Dave Stewart was because he was so close to a tree. But if we can get in touch with some other people, we might find GPS metadata in their videos.

[vt1 (VT)]

Greg, you improved a lot with getting the right positions of the audio sources. I’m thinking that the height difference might be a second order source of error. The sources closer to the shot have a bigger real distance than the sources that are far.

Does your model consider that?