Other Forensics of the Assassination Attempt

Citizens Investigation Trump Shooting
350

A few days ago I sent in my sound analysis but, as the math got really complicated I used some short cuts or simplifications. But that left me with the question, what if I hadn’t done that, would I get a different result? So I wrote a program to do the calculations for me for 898x1920 locations and just check if there is a match. I want to donate this program and its results so if more accurate results become available someone can enter those in the program and run it again. This is the result I got:

uitvoer
uitvoer1920×898 302 KB

Here is a link to my G-drive directory, where you can find the program plus documentation plus input and output map. DonaldThomas - Google Drive
Oh, almost forgot, What does the program do?
It appears that shots 1-3 were from a different location as shots 4-8. Assuming that shots 4-8 were from TMC, this program triangulates the position of shooter 1.
BTW, if you assume that TMC took shots 1-3, you get no results for shooter 2.
All in more detail in the document in the directory that is linked above.
(for running the program you’ll need php-cli + php-gd)
Enjoy!
Ernst.

2 Likes
351

This is really intriguing…I need to understand this better…can we discuss?

352

What if there were 2 shooters right next to each other? Crooks and Nicol or fill in the blank. Hmmmm convenient and would explain a lot, South snipers would have seen that wouldn’t they? He had a partner on the roof but would the ground crowd see that too? Problem is we have so many witnesses and so much video that can’t be accurately located. All we have is this, the FBI PA LEO have had custody of all else, Suspect the FBI LEO stuff. Edited to add: From realdjstew724 subsequent video of the PA State Patrol investigators question theme- they were trying to find out if he knew Crooks and who else he saw there. The guy in the Red Pickup that was trying to run off the crowd. One guy. Wonder what that was? And is the PA State Patrol doing their own investigation away from FBI, moreover; why? Why is PA State Patrol and are they PA State Patrol they cornered the guy at 10 PM on the 18th of July, odd real odd. OK good stuff Chris.

353

For those who seem to be getting irritated or taking it personal when someone questions an agreed upon belief, please drop the attitude and consider the following

Psychological Phenomena

The tendency to automatically assume new information is wrong (especially when it conflicts with existing beliefs or knowledge) can be attributed to various psychological phenomena. Here are some factors that may contribute to this reaction:

Confirmation Bias: People often tend to seek out and interpret information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs or worldview. When presented with new information that contradicts their beliefs, individuals may instinctively reject it to maintain consistency with their preconceived notions.

Cognitive Dissonance: Cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals experience discomfort or tension due to contradictory beliefs or attitudes. When confronted with new information that challenges their existing beliefs, people may experience cognitive dissonance and instinctively reject the new information to reduce psychological discomfort.

Belief Persistence: Even when presented with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, individuals may continue to hold onto their initial beliefs due to belief persistence. This phenomenon occurs when people cling to their existing beliefs despite being presented with contradictory evidence, often because their beliefs are deeply ingrained or emotionally charged.

Overconfidence Bias: Some individuals may exhibit overconfidence bias, believing that their knowledge or beliefs are superior to new information presented to them. This bias can lead people to dismiss new information as incorrect or misguided without fully considering its validity.

Trust in Familiar Sources: People often place greater trust in sources of information that are familiar to them or align with their existing beliefs. When presented with new information from unfamiliar or disagreeable sources, individuals may be more inclined to reject it without critically evaluating its credibility or accuracy.

Fear of Change: Change can be unsettling for many individuals, particularly when challenging deeply held beliefs or assumptions. The fear of change can lead people to reject new information that threatens their existing worldview, as it may require them to reconsider their beliefs and potentially disrupt their sense of identity or security.

Overall, challenging our beliefs and staying open to an idea is very important. Sometimes, we tend to automatically assume that new information is wrong, which can stem from a combination of cognitive biases, psychological defense mechanisms, and a desire to maintain consistency with existing beliefs.

By staying aware of these factors, individuals can strive to approach new information with an open mind and engage in critical thinking and evaluation before forming conclusions.

NOW WITH THAT little informercial out of the way, there are loads of “crazy ideas” about what happened.

  1. Magic glass healing itself,
  2. Trump not hit with a bullet,
  3. Trump had this all setup
  4. Crooks not killed on the roof (it was someone else)
  5. Crooks killed before any shots are heard
  6. 8 or 10 suppressed / subsonic rounds fired before first 3 shots

…and many many other crazy wild-eye stories floating around. I think it imperative that we all stay level headed and do NOT discount any of these ridiculous claims or ridicule anyone asking about these in earnest. We all have our own way of trying to make sense out of what happened and yea we all experience some of the above psychological phenomenon in time to time regarding different issues

So please try to stay open, but do not get caught up in the multitude of rabbit holes that can quickly derail / sidetrack the investigation. Let us all try and stay on points we can substantiate the best we can with the incredibly limited and skewed information that we have to work with without getting irritated with each other.

Please remember who the real enemy is (the deep state), not each other. Divide and conquer is their game and if they can keep us distracted and fighting among ourselves - they win.

4 Likes
354

Good stuff, I agree 100%thanks for your reminder.

1 Like
355

The only I have been able to bring it up is by searching “Shooters?
| John Cullen & Clay Martin Multiple Shooters?” On Rumble

356

Search “Multiple Shooters? | John Cullen & Clay Martin”

Or

“Multiple Shooters?

| John Cullen & Clay Martin”

On Rumble

357

Found it Ray, many thanks! It’s excellent and convincing!

358

Talk to me about why Chris has not addressed many credible issues presented.

I want to know exactly what obstacles were in the line of fire from the first window. Fence, people etc.

I want to know where the water tower shooter was supposed to have shot from

I want to know if and suppressed bullets have been recovered or their point of impact fully verified (I would like someone to molecularly analyze any lead on the railing).

I would like someone to scrape blood residue off the roof and run DNA and molecular analysis.

I would like the footage of the bullet in flight towards (Crooks/Yearick)

I would like to see someone do a forensic comparison of video comparing hire Crooks walls and moves and how Yearik walls and moves. We may have even in fact seen footage of them BOTH at the fairgrounds. People walk and move in distinctly different and recognizable manners which can be demonstrated.

359

A screenshot from the Dave Stewart video, (@realDJStew724 video) that video that was very shaky, where I was trying to catch a glimpse of Crooks on the roof before the shooting, I got this image of the window below him, the window next to the drain pipe.
The window has a large circle in it. Here is the original.

IMG_2447
IMG_24471280×894 105 KB

I then investigated this more by playing with the photo settings, you know the exposure, brilliance, highlights, shadows, contrast, brightness and the like. And this is the exact same photo.
IMG_2447
IMG_24471280×894 37.8 KB

This kinda reminds me of the black hole of a spotting scope in the middle. And in the bottom right of the window, a draped over gun with scope on top.
Anybody else see anything like this?

1 Like
360

Hi Ernst.

Thanks for posting this. I was looking through the code. First question, could you include the sound/video files? It looks like the numbers are the time difference between the fourth and first shot. Is this accurate?

To verify your algorithm (simplified):

M1 = microphone 1 point
M2 = microphone 2 point
P = arbitrary point
S = shooter point
t1 = time at mic 1
t2 = time at mic 2

  • d1 = |M1P| - |M1S|
  • d2 = |M2P| - |M2S|

(Calculated in pixels)

  • d3 = d1 - d2
  • d4 = (t1 - t2) * conversion_and_scaling

(Now d3 and d4 are measured in pixels)

  • If d3 is close to d4 then color the pixel

I’m a little confused about something. What do the lines represent? Potential positions for the second shooter? If this is the case, I don’t understand the output. Take the yellow line. If you place the shooter on the far north, on the yellow line, then it wouldn’t match the time delay. There may be an error in the algorithm or an error in my understanding. It’s probably the second. :slight_smile:

361

After taking a good, hard look (several hours) at the ground floor windows it looks like the window under Crooks (the window next to the drain pipe) that the bottom half of that window may be some form of scrim. Check for yourself using the brightness, and contrast, and black point settings.

362

Ah, never mind. TDOA curve. Gotcha.

363

Hi Jim,
I will include the sound&video sources that I used. The numbers are indeed the time difference between shot 4 and shot 1 (as heard on a particular mic) which I compare to the difference in distance between the mic location and each of the shooters locations (one “known” location and one “try” location). Your simplified algorithm looks correct.
The lines drawn are indeed possible shooter locations based on two mic locations, and I understand your confusion, because I felt the same. But it is correct because it is based on the difference between the distance of each shooter location to the mic.
Consider this scenario where shot 4 was fired before shot 1, but you hear it after shot 1 because it was much further away. It is confusing, but if the math is correct and the code is too, then the lines are correct as well.

364

Hi Chris,
I answered through email to ivor (?). Can you see those emails?
Ernst.

1 Like
365

Thanks for your hard work on that, Ernst. I’m curious about the difference in your two images. The first looks like a standard trilateration of the three time delays, using circles. The second has parabolic-like curves. Can you please explain those curves? Thank you.

366

You should ignore that first image. The document included explains what I’ve done. I use the time difference between when you hear shot 4 and shot 1 to determine the location of a second shooter. If these were fired from the same location, this time difference should be the same no matter from where you hear it. But, if these were from different locations, then one location could be closer or further away depending on where you are standing. This affects this time difference.
The first image was created by simplifying the approach until it falls within my math skills. The second image was created by a program, without “solving” the math, but just through trial and error by testing every possible location. A sort of brute force method. That way I don’t need to solve the equations. Just write a program to go through millions of locations and see if it matches with what we hear in the recordings.
More details can be found in the document.

1 Like
367

Hi Ernst.

Thanks. I would appreciate it. I’ve been struggling with audio interpretation of gunshots. I wrote up my initial program in the first week, only to realize that things didn’t line up well. So I spent the next week studying the sounds of gunshots. Being able to compare notes would really help.

A small coding suggestion… If you make a function to display a single pair of mics then it simplifies adding new points. Put all the points into an array then use a combination algorithm to feed the function. That makes it extremely easy to add new points. This kind of algorithm makes me cringe though, since it has a runtime of (n-1)!. Hopefully we won’t get too many data points for it. That’s why I went with a TOA approach.

The more data points I added, the messier it became. I found the error becomes worse with time. This leads me to believe the cell phones are poor recorders. Either there’s pauses as it gets bogged down with video encoding or the timing is just a bit off. It may be due to re-encoding issues. It’s hard to find the original source material for these videos.

Also, not many people have access to a webserver with PHP. A good route for things like this is HTML/JavaScript. Layer two elements atop each other; the background image with an SVG atop. SVG’s easy to manipulate in JavaScript. If you already know all this then send me a virtual kick or something.

368

I started out looking at the audio in Audacity and putting times in a spreadsheet. Then play around a bit with those numbers. I can share those spreadsheets if you want, but I can not always explain what I was trying. I agree that the audio generally is of very poor quality for some reason. I have run into several impossibilities while playing with the data. For example in the DT.wav (Donald Trump) the difference between the gun report of shot 4 and 1 is 4.310 s, but if you use the sonic boom difference you’ll get 4.319 s. That is 9 ms longer, while it should be shorter because of the super sonic speed of the bullet. I cannot explain why this is happening. My guess is that it is created by repeated compression and decompression of the audio in combination with the video data. As you are also suggesting.
I’m not running a webserver. I just installed PHP because it is a very versatile programming language. I guess if I were born a few decades later I would have done Python. But if you want to rewrite it in JS, be my guest!
I was also thinking of putting the mic locations in a table and then you can just run through that table for every pixel. But as we already agreed on, most audio data is unusable because of low quality/reliability. So adding many mic locations is not a good idea. Better to carefully select a few far spaced ones that appear reliable.
So… do you want me to change the (PHP) program to use a table or will you rewrite it in JS? I’m OK either way.

369

Oh, forgot; how do I judge whether or not I think the audio is reliable? Two steps.
First I align the audio based on the first shot (t1 = 0). Shot 2 and 3 should then deviate no more than 1 ms from 0.858 and 1.536 resp.
Next I align the audio based on shot 4 (t4 = 0). The timing of the following shots should then deviate no more than 2 ms from 0.256, 0.440, 0.617 and 0.776 s.
If those conditions are fulfilled, I trust the timing between shot 1 and 4 should be reliable (within 2 ms which translates to 68.5 cm roughly)