So It's Back To First Principles (Part 2)

[daniel59]

@unhandyandy

then he’d still have at least a 0.2% chance (I’m rounding down this time) of catching the bullet.

That seems to be true.

However, that does not change the fact that, according to Michael Yon, a fake could most likely be detected based on the raw file.

So my theory could be confirmed or refuted.

So far, the raw file has not been published.

@unhandyandy

Source 4 = TMX recorded only one sound for each of the three shots. Those sounds were low like a bang, not high like a crack.

If your theory is right, it should have picked up two sounds for each of the three shots, a crack from the AGR9 bullet and a bang from AGR6. It didn’t.

If the supersonic bullet had been fired from building AGR 9, in an extreme case it could have flown just 1 meter above Thomas Crooks or 1 meter past him.

This would result in a crack-thump difference of 1 millisecond, and both the crack and thump would be equally loud at around 90dB.

And you’re sure you can always recognize a crack?

@greg_n Under these circumstances, would you always be able to recognize a crack?

Furthermore, it is not at all clear whether a crack from AGR 6 should be audible on source 4 or not.

In the following image, the purple line on the right shows the border between AGR 9 crack and AGR 6 crack. To the left of it, only AGR 9 crack should be audible, and to the right of it, AGR 6 crack should be audible.

However, this is only under the assumption that the shock wave of the Mach cone continues to propagate perpendicularly to its surface as a normal sound wave after it collapses.

Can you refute that this propagation occurs perpendicularly to the Mach cone?

@unhandyandy

The police cruiser outside AGR6 also should have recorded cracks from AGR9 but didn’t.

Three police cruisers drove into the parking lot to stop Crooks. So far, only the dashcam footage from one car has been released.

We know that footage from at least one other cruiser exists because it was shown during a task force hearing, albeit without sound.

@kincses-zsolt

The troopers dashcam video was not released. The congressional Task Force showed some part of it, without sound.

@offtheback believes he has discovered that the only dashcam recording published so far has been manipulated.

He has discovered an echo that had more energy than the report itself.

Can you refute his claim?

@daniel59

@offtheback

My guess as to what happened here: They first cut out all of the “real” shots with slightly different timing. This also cut out the noise. They then added the pristine shot waveform they wanted to use (eight times) at the spacings they wanted. Then they added some noise to mask the process. But the noise wasn’t the same as the real cabin noise. And in some places, they didn’t get it everywhere they needed it. Not easy to see if you are looking at the whole composite signal, so out the door it went.

@offtheback

But the report itself has almost no energy above 2000 Hz while the echo does.

The only physical world explanation that even starts to address this is that the echo is of the bullet sonic signature that bounced off something in front of the shot–I don’t know what that would be, DJ Stewart (joking)? Even he was too far away for that.

But what really happened is the report inexplicably has no high-frequency content. It doesn’t match the echo or the noise spectrum of the rest of the audio.

@offtheback

My explanation for why the police cruiser audio doesn’t converge along with the rest is that it’s fake. The follow-up question as to why it was faked is what I don’t have an explanation for, particularly if there was no second shooter. Maybe “they” had to edit out a section of the video where something happened in front of building 6 that was picked up on the mic, and they had to replace the reports along with a clip of the blank wall. Who knows, this remains a mystery.

Everything else on the audio analysis is solved in my mind.

@offtheback

We don’t know what the cruiser alterations were supposed to achieve.

@unhandyandy

Source 4 = TMX

I got confused with the labels for the videos. More than one label was used for most of them.

The audio recording in question is (Ross/TMZ/Source 3). It was recorded next to the tree. His name is Mike DiFrischia.