If it did mention 8 casings, I missed it. I have since listened to the latest video from Chris, and in this version they categorically counted 8 casings.
The first counting was done by the guy who climbed with the woman on the roof and he clearly said its 5 shells but once that black skin man in black police uniform came he counted again but this time 8 shells.
2 Likes
I believe Michelle is a ESU medic who looks like she is ready to loose her lunch while standing over the body. At minute 5:40 it appears she converses with camo-clad guy who gestures with arm movement toward the 2-storey bldg. As a medic, was she asking “where was the shot from?”. There were words I couldn’t make out…
2 Likes
It make me more confussed from Chris voice calculations when I see the video from 28 minutes, please have a look calculations and bullet trace from the google map measurements:
The last minute is really interesting too,
Thanks for clarifying. This helps me understand much better. 
| *** LOCATION OF ESU SNIPER SHOT # 9 ORIGIN *** | |
|---|---|
| Message | |
| The Youtuber channel is ( Legally Armed America ) he has a great video of the ESU sniper who probably was the source of the 9 shot heard in your audio analysis This came for him the snipers location is to the left of Trump when he was on the stage. Behind a building to trumps left out at 10 oclock position if trump is at the 12 oclock position. Seems to be the same height of building 6 he was just behind this building there is in the picture provided to be a lot of sand before it turns to all grass… Perched on another building just behind it with a sniper rifle that could have been carbon fiber barrel with a flash suppressor that you can see in the image he is providing in his video. | |
| God speed and god bless you for all that you are doing to get to the truth. | |
| God bless the United States of America | |
| Best regards, | |
| Fourth “sniper” location identified at Trump assassination attempt | |
| https://youtu.be/4mwSoRdb_xs?si=jTAN_i_6xa0AM545 |
Hi Chris,
This guy’s brother was at event and is reporting a DIFFERENT credible location for the actual CS shooter that shot #10.
Also, he recreated that shot/distance with a water melon as simulated patsy head and fake roof and like you showed in your video on 27th, the head completely explodes, which he doesn’t talk about (in terms of implications like you do wrt what can be seen on roof) BUT it concurs with your reasoning that maybe that shot missed or hit torso. He hit water melon with 1 shot from 370 yards! Well well worth the watch. The different angle compared to sniper position #2 also chimes with rationale that there was no supersonic snick from last shot.
Finally, I have some thoughts of my own that I’d like to humbly add to your scenario analysis, building on top of all your great work. I’m watching all this with interest from Scotland!
- the shooters perspective *
I have heard no discussion from anyone on what ppl anticipate what the shooter was thinking, either leading up to or through this event as it unfolded, or what he had planned as getaway. But he was an intelligent human being even if depressed and deluded. And looking at things from his pov has helped me build my own working hypothesis.
My thoughts:
-
because of all the great analysis you have done on audio files, I’m convinced that shots 1-3 and 4-8 ARE from two shooters, both trying to kill Trump.
-
now if Crooks WAS shooter for 1-3 then shooter 4-8 was waiting for Crook’s lead, and was an insurance policy to make sure the mission was successful. Additionally, I think there would have been someone in charge that would have communicated via phones or radio or placard to Crooks to tell him to shoot. I’ve seen the observations of some that the woman behind Trump seems to signal, then remains calm, then immediately uses phone to video what’s going on. I don’t think you have mentioned this - and I think I understand why. It’s wise. But just imagine for a microsecond…if this woman turns out to be the handler….creating a level of comfort for Crooks by being right there etc. I reckon the handling of Crooks would have been given the highest level, in priority, in focus, in funding, in resources, in planning, and in time. I’ve read about how Mossad successfully turned high ranking HAMAS operatives against their own people. We have an expression here that may not translate well for you yanks, ‘softly softly catchee monkey’.
-
however if you observe Trump carefully, he is still STANDING while shots 1-3 come over, but he’s DROPPED to ground by time the second volley 4-8 arrives, rendering that volley both redundant though tragic in collateral damage (assuming you’re correct in identifying shot 6 as one that tragically hit Corey). There is a side implication here that the 2nd shooter, who is still alive, is the murderer of an innocent civilian. What’s his alibi going to be when we ID him? - ‘I was really aiming for the former president! - I didn’t intentionally aim for the fireman’. It should be very easy to ID him as he was part of the detail for the day, the number of marksmen must be very small, <12 I reckon. How many of them fired that day? 2 or 3.
-
assuming shooter 2 took decision to pull trigger in those 1-2 secs that he could observe Trump still standing and still very much alive. He decides to fire a volley (I assume at slightly lower trajectory) body shots to finish the job. This is what a pro would do!!
-but they ALL miss because by the time they arrive Trump is prostrate, Trump might have thought he was saved because first guy missed, but what really saved him was being completely on the ground as the second volley came through.
-
I assume the second shooter ammo will have been selected to be identical to Crooks, forensics can confirm but barrel marks will prove it’s a distinct and second gun. I wonder did forensics collect any of the bullets from the different volleys for comparison? You’d think they would have not allowed anything to move from site until all that crime scene investigation was thoroughly completed. But instead they seemed to think it was expedient to do a cleanup. Hmmmm.
-
I assume Crooks can’t have known about the 2nd shooter (otherwise he would have figured he was being setup) until he hears volley 2, but when he heard those shots ring out the dawning realization would have completely discombobulated him causing hime to behave in an unpredictable way possibly lifting his head. Giving CS sniper opportunity to shoot which he did whether or not that was the actual kill shot was successful.
-
overall, this scenario is more plausible to me than either :
a) crooks being the 2nd volley shooter - surely if he heard shots he would suddenly realise he’s not alone and would not shoot at all but try and scarper. But I think that there would have been a marksman trained on him with the sole objective to take him out (I think from behind) once the deed was done.
b) crooks not shooting at all and there being two other coordinating shooters. That just does not scan for me. The setup and risks associated with grooming of Crooks, furnishing him with Crypto currency (conveniently untraceable unlike fiat currency) are just too great for him NOT to have been a protagonist in the plot even though he was actually a pawn. But he wasn’t experienced enough in life to realise or have enough mates to bring him to his senses. Sadly he was used and abused by his sophisticated handlers. -
the second volley would never have been fired if Crooks had not missed or if Trump had dropped prostrate on first shot. But I think he was still standing touching his ear realizing he was under attack when the insurance shooter pulled his trigger at that amazingly fast cadence (world class) he missed Trump by a very small time window.
-
I reckon when DJT was on ground and had been jumped on by his protective group that the order would have gone out to take out the patsy. Since this was a belt and braces operation, I think the SS sniper left of bleachers would have always been the one positioned to take him out and did shoot, but there would also be someone on that building behind as insurance on patsy elimination. As, no matter what, whatever happened, the patsy had to die immediately, even though a SEAL team or even regular cops could have easily have over powered him and stopped him and got his story. But that was never the plan clearly.
-
all this begs a question of how they managed the studied incompetence of the local law enforcement not to spot him or take him out BEFORE he had chance to shoot.
-
hmmm, I don’t think in any scenario LEO could be ‘initiated’ into the plot. Consequently, I’m guessing that SS took specific responsibility for covering that building 6 roof. I imagine the lack of consistency of radio comms and a single command / control was deliberate. But anytime any LEO got near that roof there would have been a directive from SS/FBI “we’ve got this covered with 3x or 4x counter sniper teams so leave the kid to us”. SS/FBI taking responsibility for that roof is the only scenario which would allow the patsy handlers to tell him he could scale roof with impunity, no doubt providing ladder even. Maybe they told him “our sniper scopes are obscured by the trees and if you keep your head down they won’t see a thing. You’ll be safe. Once you’ve done your job, detonate the explosives in your car to create havoc. Calmly get off roof minus your rifle, ride your bike to second vehicle (the van) or whatever vehicle didn’t get blown up, then drive out of town to destination X and we’ll keep you protected. Lie low and think about how you’ll spend all that bitcoin and USDT we transferred to your offshore accounts.”
-
the scouting the grounds earlier in day and drone survey could have all been for the job of familiarising himself with his escape route on bicycle. This would have been planned in meticulous detail. Cycling across open grounds avoiding roadblocks in cargo shorts is a near perfect getaway scenario especially for someone who still looks like a kid.
-
we need a deep throat (ala Watergate to start revealing things to you) to allow the full extent of the collusion and perfidy of this sordid affair to be brought out into the open and ultimately for the courts to do their job. We need to determine how high this conspiracy went and bring them all to justice. We need some organisation OTHER than the FBI to lead the investigation and prosecute justice. They are not trusted or trustworthy. Self governance guarantees corruption. Wray prevaricated constantly throughout this week’s testimony. Guilty.
-
Cheatle also lied, prevaricated, obfuscated and tried to deceive her way through. Guilty. Her somber and sober demeanour also made me think she feared for her life.
-
the two shooters (you convinced me), plus expedited cleanup of site, plus basic security malfeasance (no drones, no dogs, documented denial of additional resources, no coordination of comms) plus the performances of Cheatle and Wray sealed it for me that we definitely have a conspiracy on our hands.
-
the getaway: I think the ‘plan’ as communicated to Crooks would have been, the assassination would have created total carnage at the site as 20k people suddenly have a reckoning with history in the worst possible way. A bomb a few streets away will create a useful distraction for local law enforcement. You will be outside the perimeter…riding away on your bicycle in shorts and Tshirt will be a cakewalk. He really should have read up more closely on Lee Harvey Oswald….
-
the scenario of failed Trump assassination : I don’t imagine that the planners of this whole affair imagined there would be a catastrophic and spectacular failure of their plan. It was minutely planned. There was a shooter and a backup shooter. SS are in command control position. I don’t think there is a failure scenario plan. It’s a ‘we can’t afford to fail’ type thing. Now they have no plan, many people in know which creates a risk, someone will break ranks. They will be panicking, and people who panic make mistakes.
-
the forensic data will prove to be an insurmountable obstacle they can’t remove and any/all tampering will be an incriminating tell.
-
like Watergate, it will all come out, but I think at a much faster rate since the investigation is not being lead by a couple of Washington Post reporters looking for a scoop, but instead by this small cadre of honourable citizens you have built around you who all want to claim their country back from this beastly military / security / industrial complex which like a cancer has taken over and is destroying the body of your country, and thinks it has the prerogative to destroy anyone or anything that gets in its way.
-
you are doing an admirable job, you will change history as the truth is gradually exposed.
-
from your Scottish sleuth. Hopefully reading my observations will have given you some relief from all the blood / sweat and tears that you’ve had this past fortnight.
-
your videos are compelling viewing.
3 Likes
As to your question of who were the local snipers inside AGR, there "were three counter-snipers located in the building that the shooter eventually used to take shots at Trump,” one officer told BeaverCountian.com, and then details that “Among those municipal counter-snipers was Sergeant Gregory Nicol of the Monaca Borough Police Department. Nicol was providing security at the Trump rally in his role as a member of the Beaver County Emergency Services Unit (ESU), the county’s equivalent of a SWAT team.” More info on him:
(1) Greg Nicol of Monaca PD:
(See also LinkedIn, pdf version.) Appears in Grassley video 2 at 18:29:30 as he opens from the inside of AGR the door of 1st floor for the green camo Beaver County ESU team:
He is wearing black uniform, with a chevron of “Washington Regional SWAT” PA; his sleeve tattoo is visible.
He also appears in an ABC exclusive video, a team of local SWAT at Butler that day testify that they only got to speak to Secret Service after the shooting, despite having disseminated pictures and warnings much earlier. In the back row at left appears Greg Nicol:
What do we know of Greg Nicol on July 13? In Grassley video 1 19:08:34-19:09:15, as a late arriving SS agent with red hair is on the roof questioning already present LEO, the local LEO tells SS agent that the “sniper” who took the picture of Crooks from the 2nd floor was right inside a particular window on west side (see 19:08:41 for the specific window fingered) and refers to him as “Greg” twice, that sniper went down to look for kid and pictured him on a bike and lost track of him, and sent the picture out. Earlier at 19:08:40 in Grassley video 1 the LEO recording video of his talk with SS first calls out a “Michelle” in green camo and asks if “Greg” is still inside 2nd floor … so they know one another, despite different uniforms. (The same chevron as Greg Nicol’s in Grassley 2 appears in Grassley 1 at 19:09:39 on a sniper without sleeve tattoo.)
Who are the other two local snipers in AGR building? One appears in Grassley video 1 at 19:08:19 most clearly; his chevron appears clearly at 19:09:39. I do not see him in the ABC news video. Reverse face lookup fails for me. His voice appears in Grassley 1 at 19:09:18-19.
The third AGR sniper is not the one running his helmet cam in Grassley video 1, because he is wearing green camo rather than black.
Snipers with sleeve tattoos are not unique. The shorter and lighter tattoed in the first row of ABC video seems to appear in Grassley video 2 at 18:27:56 and 18:28:05 with his bearded face (note short stature and sleeve tattoo and non-black uniform) running toward AGR - so he could not have been the local sniper in the AGR building since at that moment after the assassination attempt he was outside AGR and making his way there with colleagues.
Btw:
- mysterious alleged “grey suit ATF” man who sought out pictures right after assassination attempt may be showing his face in Grassley 2 at 18:27:27
- Timothy Burke may appear in Grassley 2 at 18:27:05 & 18:27:07 & 18:27:10 on the phone in front of an ambulance
In support of your hypothesis that “Looked at one way, those in the room were in on it and they didn’t shoot Crooks before the shooting because that was the plan” is the following exclusive interview allegedly given to The Gateway Pundit by Greg Smith (of the BBC interview):
““I was looking all around to get law enforcement’s attention before the shots, and I could tell it was coming, because as I was standing there for several minutes I kept thinking ‘why is Trump still talking?’ You expect someone to be on the radio or whatever the protocol is, to get Trump off the stage. I knew this isn’t good. I expected the shots to start, and then they did. It was mass chaos. I was looking at the guys on the second story, my eyes were jumping three or four different places, I could see that they saw him and were looking at him and watching what he was doing, but they didn’t do anything.“”
“Butler County Sheriffs Deputies have [said that their body cameras were turned off and there is no footage available from the incident.”
If this is true, we hope that TGP puts up the video or audio of this interview. If this is true, the local snipers in 2nd floor of AGR let Crooks shoot on purpose, and hid their collaboration with Crooks’ shots by turning off body cams.
It still would be puzzling why local snipers took shot #9 but failed to kill Crooks and then failed to shoot for another 10 seconds until SS killed him. If local snipers wanted Crooks to keep shooting and kill Trump, why fire #9 right after #8 (assuming #8 was Crooks’) and not let Crooks keep shooting? If local snipers did want Crooks to stop shooting, why not shoot him multiple times on the chest and head from so close?
Personally, I find it strange that Greg Smith is not all over the place giving a lot of interview, and YT has taken down his BBC interview, and BBC has edited out the last part of his interview. Greg Smith is being censored, it seems. Contrast this to Mike DiFrischia of the TMZ video, he has given lots of interviews with major TV new networks.
1 Like
I lifted a couple of audio clips from your 21 July video to do a crude proof of concept. My motivation is that comparing the perceived time differences within the same recording are self-calibrating and therefore unequivocal evidence which is pretty robust to all kinds of estimating errors.
This difference method (which compares the recordings made at separate locations requires estimating the directions between the microphones and the source of the first group of shots, but not the distance itself. Further, the direction needed information is not very sensitive to to errors in the location of the source and the microphone.
The recordings I used were of the 9 reports at around 11 min 51 sec [front] and 17 min 45 sec [side]. Following table treats the beginning of the group of 3 shots in the recording as time=0. This beginning has been estimated crudely, as have all the other times:
| Column 1 | Column 2 | Column 3 | Column 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | 5-shot group | 9th shot | |
| front | 4.330s | 5.940s | |
| side | 4.335s | 6.026s | |
| difference | 0.005s | 0.086s | |
| minimum displacement | 2m | 30m | |
| Where I have taken the speed of sound at 350 m/s | |||
| The displacement is the distance between the sources of the later shots with respect to the first shot. Since we have only two recording locations in this example, the actual subsequent source could lie anywhere on a line parallel to the bisector of the directions of the two microphones from the source of the first shot. |
These data indicate that the group of 5 shots originated at least 2 meters from the group of 3 shots (consistent with 2 guns). For comparison, the 9th shot originated at least 30 meters from the first shot.
As I said, the above is proof of principle.
The irony is that this building is MORE patrolled now by police or security than it was during President Trump’s speech. He could not even stay to take more of the pictures he would have liked to take.
1 Like
Don’t be surprised if the AGR suddenly gets demolished and some new federally funded project built there🧐
1 Like