Other Forensics of the Assassination Attempt

Citizens Investigation Trump Shooting
381

And BigTim, if I just wanted a regurgitation of Leftist viewpoints, I would watch CNN.

You probably think CNN was there for Trump’s VP pick too. Nevermind, how the FBI tipped CNN off for several raids like for Roger Stone and Mar Lago to name a few.

Pure coincidence huh?

So who was the Dude backing up? There was at least 4 SS on the Left side of the SUV. No one else. Thought the SS was the Best of the Best, yet they are allowing this No Name dude to back them up. I damn sure wouldn’t be trusting someone outside my group to be backing me/us up.

Then the SS aren’t the best of the Best.

Some of the weakest points on that SUV are the sides.

And this Dude maybe just an idiot and I would tell him so to his face, if he drew down out of incompetence.

And I will finish with ALL the LEO AND SS that knew there was a Guy on the roof with a GUN with CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT to President Trump. Yet I didn’t see ONE shouldered rifle or even pistols at the ready. Including supposedly a LEO that confronted Crooks on the ROOF.

AN ACTUAL THREAT THAT PEOPLE WERE SCREAMING ABOUT YET NOT ONE SHOT TAKEN BEFORE CROOKS.

So spare me the state narrative that now a dude with a gun a few steps from President Trump shoulders his GUN, WHEN NO THREAT WAS EVEN PRESENT EXCEPT POSSIBLY HIM.

And that reminds me. “Conveniently”, LE wasn’t able to communicate with SS, some even having to send emails (what a joke), but Somehow this Dude was able to be back up for the Best of the Best SS on Comms. When anyone with more than one brain cell to rub together, realize Crooks didn’t pull this off on his own. Period.

Another coincidence…

Just like Crooks was a Lone Wolf…You selling that narrative too BigTim?

Just like someone calling themselves God, Lord or in your case Big…ran up against your type plenty on Social platforms. Guys like you always hype yourself up.

Why is that BigTim?

Later…

382

Dear Texan,

according to a German proverb, even dwarves cast long shadows when the sun goes down …

If I may, I would like to ask you something. I recently asked ChatGPT at what perpendicular distance from the trajectory you can still hear the sonic boom emitted by a 5.56x44mm NATO projectile if fired through a 16-inch barrel in the open. When pressed, the answer was 1 - 2 km, but without giving any references. Is this value realistic, in quiet surroundings at least?

I’m thinking about this in relation to the sound pressure of the sonic boom as transmitted by Trumps loudspeaker system and along the line of sight in direction to the shooter. Which one would be louder near one of these loudspeaker and, say, 30 m from the speaker, if you had to guess?

There must be also technical documents regarding the sound pressure level in relation to Mach-speed, caliber and distance.

1 Like
383

Pk,

I have been fortunate enough to have traveled at the speed of sound and much higher, when flying for the AF and Navy.

And though I am an Electrical Engineer and have studied waveforms at various frequencies, amplitude and various levels of harmonics, I couldn’t give you a definitive answer to your questions.

I have been a bowhunter, since the age of 7, because I shot my first deer, we guessed (didn’t have rangefinders back then) near 500 yds. I pointed the buck out to my Uncle and Dad and both could barely see the deer much less shoot. I stopped rifle hunting for deer then because it felt like to me more killing than hunting.

But over the years as I sat in the woods or at deer camp, we would listen to the shots taken. One shot is very hard tp pinpoint unless you know it is coming, it takes multiple shots to pinpoint.

But what fascinated me as a Kid was how the Elders would say they could determine a hit from a miss by the sound of the shot.

To this day, I reserve judgement, because like you are pointing out, just being in a very open space compared to a heavily wooded space makes a difference due to absorption and other noises.

So I have heard others comment on this topic on hearing the supersonic boom and its range/distance relative to the report, but again I reserve judgment.

384

Excellent! Thank you for the detailed description with graphics. That sounds like a logical approach to me.

385

WV.mp4 - This is a screen capture of a video that contains the video. That’s twice removed. Screen capture also explains why the volumes for all the videos/audio is lower than it should be. You may want to compare with the one on my google drive. (Link posted somewhere above.) There are tools you can use to download videos from x and youtube. It’s the encoded version of them, but it should be more pristine than screen captures.

Dayve.wav - Missing the last shot.

DT.wav - This is the news feed with the clamped audio. The audio goes silent after the sonic booms. (Either due to a mic or afterwards in video editing.) I’ve seen this video too. I also found one from a similar angle without the clamping. If you grab my sources from the google drive, it’s 5.mp4. As it was recently pointed out, this isn’t the audio from trump’s mic. It’s from west of Trump. In this video you can hear the gunshots then the shots out of the speaker or echos. These speakers/echos are about 47 ms after the original, which is roughly the increased distance of the speakers relative to the mic. I can’t find a similar acoustic reflective surface at that distance, so my bet is on speakers.

386

Interestingly, there is now another poster who is using the TDOA method based on MatLab (link below). Does he also use a mislabeled source which only nominally comes from DT mic?

In such a context, one has also be aware of the possibility of deliberatly misplaced or even completely falsified audio tracks.

387

Your attacks on me are misplaced and incorrect. YOU wrote a long ill-informed diatribe and insinuated that the brunette behind Trump “acted weird” (when in reality she acted no differently than many in the crowd. She pulled out her phone and started video taping. You posted several pictures of her and insinuated she was an FBI agent.

This is EXHIBIT A of your lack of ability to think critically and do basic research whilst presenting theories already researched and debunked. All that does is to spread bad rumors and waste peoples’ time or install false information in the heads of casual observers who might not know that it was debunked. And I should not even have to cite a debunk source, there’s many articles AT THE TIME YOU POSTED YOUR THEORIES debunking it. So it was already bad info when you posted it. I knew that because days prior I read it was debunked, the woman had been identified and was not from the FBI. But instead of bothering to simply look into it you showed poor critical thinking and judgement by posting it as a possible theory. I think that speaks for itself in gauging the rest of your theories.

Exhibit B: That guard did not have a weapon, ammo, nor caliber sufficient to penetrate Mr. Trump’s armored vehicle, nor did he point it at Mr. Trump’s vehicle. All you’re doing is wasting the time of everyone that wades thru your unsupported theories. We can easily dismiss this theory, again:

  1. He didn’t point it at Mr. Trump
  2. He could have never known in advance to have M995 or other AP ammo for this specific opportunity.
  3. The fact he did NOT shoot at Mr. Trump nor point his weapon in his direction easily dispenses with this absurd idea.

You’ve stated repeatedly that the guard in front of Trump’s SUV shouldered and pointed his weapon at President Trump when he was being evacuated. That is patently provably false. And it would have been openly hostile yet a futile gesture. You have not bothered to post any screen shot to support your wild theory, and that is probably because there is no image that supports that nonsense. Instead it is again a distracting time wasting angle that serves no purpose for people who actually have viable theories. If you disagree, don’t type a diatribe but instead post the best image you think reflects this theory and we can then decide whether he actually pointed his rifle at Mr. Trump. I’m guessing you won’t do that because it didn’t happen.

One then wonders why the insistence on presenting distracting theories. Are you a plant and is it a psyop to discredit those people here doing actual real work on this case in order to spread nonsense theories to make credible people look like unhinged dingbats grabbing at straws and weird theories? One of those people saying Trump orchestrated this and was not shot but SS applied blood to his ear to stage a heroic brave event for him? Because that’s what this feels like. A psyop.

388

I am inexperienced with audio analysis but have a working familiarity with ballistics. I applaud all of those doing the ballistic audio analysis and triangulation. My caveat and concern is that bullets - especially inexpensive commercial bullets that might be sold in the typical 50 pack which apparently Crooks purchased - are not necessarily identically uniform in the amount of powder. Even in the same box and lot of ammo, there might be 2% or even 5% variation in speeds from one bullet to the next, due to small variations in gun powder. Furthermore, one or more shooters could have had a mixture of brands, weights, and types, adding more variables. The point is there could be many variables that might explain different speeds and audible reports and it may be hard to isolate those variables without controls and more information (which the Feds have been withholding without good reason). Also, if two rifles, even if the same caliber, there may have been different barrel lengths, muzzle devices, and ammo, etc. which adds to the complexity.

389

Yesterday I saw that extended video from DJ Stewart posted by someone here on prosperity where Stewart tells the cop interrogating him days later at the aftermath of the shooting he overheard chatter on police radio that “2nd shooter was still at large video of and there was blood in the bathroom”. Stewart was then informed that police have him and Crooks together exchanging words.

390

I’ve seen variations like that in the data. Thanks for the info. It helps.

393

Ernst - thank you. I’m reviewing the Google docs you sent.

I think I can help with more accurate positioning of the recordings if that would help.

394

@cmartenson
Chris, I’ve been following you since 2020, always great diligent work. I just watched your video discussing the echo time variations of shots 1-3 and 4-8. I agree with the 2nd shooter hypothesis.

In this famous image we see Crooks. There’s a taller building probably 150 hundred feet behind Crooks as seen in this image. All sorts of good shadows from the tree, and vertical vent pipes for concealment.

yf66aaf5c0
yf66aaf5c01281×726 110 KB

  1. It gives the pro good overwatch of Crooks to start firing when Crooks is in position, or abort if Crooks fails to reach the roof and get into position. And he can observe law enforcement, distracted with Crooks.
  2. Trajectories would be nearly identical.
  3. There is sufficient concealment, and while the aerial of the tree shows it far away from the building, from the rally it casts nice shadow backdrop. Or that vertical pipe between your circles would be a very good place to hide behind and expose almost no roof signature from the vantage of the rally.
  4. Easy escape path, after the shooting. Shuffle down and away while everyone is surrounding AGR #6.
  5. It may help explain the echo time differences, with shots from the 2 story having a “faster echo” to position source #4 since the report is traveling forward/sideways, whereas Crooks report/echo is traveling sideways/backwards 90 degrees to source #4.
  6. Depending on height of trees, might also be totally obscured from both Hercules teams on the barn rooftops.

Apologies for the poor quality images but they convey the point.

BFS edits
BFS edits1920×1440 255 KB

BFS2 edits
BFS2 edits1920×2560 899 KB

That’s a heck of a good spot for a assassin, so he can observe Crooks and fire in line with his trajectories. If we focus on that taller building we can draw a straight line to where the bullets 1-3 impacted. I theorize that a professional assassin was on (or in a high section, possibly with a small section cut out for a rifle shot) of that building, essentially overlooking Crooks to see when he was in position and then firing once Crooks was in position before he could be neutralized.

That might account for the faster echo to Source 4, because it would have been about 90 degrees forward/right of that shooter. Crooks “echo” would be coming rear-ward some 90 degrees angle back to bounce off the building, and thus be slower to register on Source 4.

One other note: If you study the area 4’ in front of Crooks dead body, there are apparent rifle powder burns where we would expect his muzzle would have been. It’s very hard to count those dark marks or identify if those are patterns on the white roof, or powder burns. There are several in the channel Crooks is in, and one a few channels to his right. That is something worth looking into. I know the building has already been pressure washed. But if we could locate clear pictures that might answer a lot of questions, whether they are patterns, or powder burns and if so how many. They do not seem to appear to be roof patterns. So possibly wear/age/weathering, or powder burns.

If these are “powder burns” I count about 4 darker ones, and maybe 6 lighter ones for 10 total. Numerous ones could be left for each shot, depending on the type and orientation of his flash-hider. Theoretically, with the correct angle and type of flash hider, it could leave 2 per shot, and with what appears to be 10 scoring marks, that equals to 5 shots…

body2
body21920×941 138 KB

1 Like
395

Any improvements are more than welcome!

396

Exactly……lots of unanswered questions, JFK esque

397

If anyone has high quality video [1080] of the shot that hits the rail, i can slow it down slower than the ones he is using today.

on the sound, mic movement will change the strength of the echo, not the time between shot and echo. person holding the phone would need to move the phone 6 feet to effect the time interval by .01 s

next tiny step. Where did the 5 shot grouping end up. We know, in the 3 shot grouping, the one that hit Trump’s ear. That leaves seven, three hit spectators. Were any of the three spectators “thru an thru.” If so, we might be able to track one to the hydraulic shot, giving us a differential line. That still leaves a minimum of three bullets totally unaccounted for.

It seems very odd to me he could miss the target by so little on the first shot and not hit anything with 3 shots.

Last thought: what is the “full auto” cyclic rate on that gun? [i still hate auto correct]

398

Don’t know where the 8 shots landed, but we have 1 dead, Trump’s injury, 1 man was shot once, 1 man was shot once or twice, several bystanders suffered minor bullet injuries, one bullet shattered on the bleachers, and 1 hit the hydraulic lines. I have seen many different theories and re-creations of where these impacted but unfortunately the Feds contaminated and deconstructed the crime scene so it’s a best guess.

Bar napkin figuring, I assume, based on all shots in the same general trajectory:
1 bullet caused Trump’s injury and passed thru, shattering on the bleacher. Shrapnel probably caused other minor injuries.
1 bullet killed a victim, headshot
1 bullet caused 1 injury to a victim, I think torso
2 bullets caused 2 injuries to a victim, torso
1 bullet severed a hydraulic line.
That’s 6. Leaving 2 unaccounted for.
This is a rough guess.

Nothing at all unusual about that. Inherently the first shot would be presumably the most aimed/accurate. The shooter can, normally, take the most time and gauge the target’s movement to time the best shot, and the target (in this case, Trump) was unaware. Here it appears (intentionally or accidentally) a perfectly placed temple head shot that would have instantly killed President Trump but for a miracle head movement and maybe a gust of wind and a big dose of divine intervention.

Subsequent shots will be under higher pressure, and result in the target reacting and moving and seeking cover or concealment. The shooter would have to re-gain the target under recoil, breath, and pull the trigger while the target is now moving for cover. Rapid fire is generally inherently less accurate than slow steady controlled fire. The tradeoff is less accuracy but more chances/bullets.

That rifle was not fully automatic (which can fire hundreds of rounds or even thousands of rounds per minute). It is semi automatic, requiring 1 trigger pull per bullet. It can fire as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. In this case that rapid string of 5 shots is well within the capabilities of that (or any) semi-automatic firearm. Nothing abnormal about the speed of firing. For those that don’t understand, a “fully automatic” weapon would have been a poor choice for this scenario because they are much less accurate due to recoil.

399

[food for thought no need to respond to me]
I,m going to question the CAD guys assessment of bleacher height. i got a picture of a cop and a waste bin in front of the bleachers. might get a more accurate measurement from the 30" waste bins. [sadly i can only post one image /sadface]

image

https://www.amazon.com/Bankers-Box-Corrugated-Containers-7320101/dp/B00QPZL37I/ref=sr_1_3?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.KNuQnuIjbOk-usM23aXzo4dBqL2benEZFsBFUfXUhkKbUW3UIxg8TCkODIfbM-dLg3SdCTzOU2q75rZ-mVYVGaIvq25A9bw3f_zMS_HZUkvxyVIdV0CQ85ZbeQ46vhS6vHAH9iTcj7iU7-i94qpE3onP0qzOPQCI9R1HDzaAKQOygTv9JtjCpHiBTmQw7smbLyaV5On1K0Y-dVmh3GL3K5EMTDavD2483W2zv-0_8_I.8zMFgbU4jDv5khK7v0z694OJTPJaLZm8WtDEIooy9oA&dib_tag=se&keywords=cardboard%2Btrash%2Bcans%2Bfor%2Bevents&qid=1722919859&sr=8-3&th=1

1 Like
400

So on point one, you are contending, i am right - we need to know where the bullets landed. Note the use of the word “know” in place of “think” → Yes i already put in the FOIA request and was hoping for faster result.

on point 2 don’t ask - use math - dead guy to hydraulic lift adjust for angle of separation.

on point 3 - an AR-15 bolt assembly can be altered/converted on most makes and models of AR-15. i just don’t have that model, so that part of the message is for people who “know”. → Yes, the bolt assembly is interchangeable and costs about 50 to 200 dollars, depending on several criteria.

Thank you for your input

I had to edit i missed your last line and when i reread it i was picturing crooks trying to hump a M134 up a ladder…

401

What are you driving at?

Crooks, a 20 year old from an apparent middle class family, used a $50,000 registered fully automatic AR15 but managed to fire 8 or less shots?

As far as I know, as reported, it is a SEMI-AUTO DPMS Panther lower from around 2012. It also requires some sophistication to fabricate a fully auto sear (hint: it’s highly illegal, guarded information, and requires more than just a new Bolt Carrier.).

There’s no evidence it was a fully auto rifle or modified to fire fully auto and if it had been the Feds would be screaming about it…

402

@bigtim Yeah im not even gonna try to work you thought “know” and “think”.

lets just assume my post was: [food for thought no need to respond to me]

[Edit: i cant resist: AR-15s are not $50,000 dollar weapons — Search time 3.6 seconds: https://dpmsinc.com/ar-15/complete-guns/rifles.html ]