I think he was not “dancing” literally. Rather clapping and flapping.
When it is true, he had not just a problem, but was squeezed into the corner. Probany he was blackmailed or forced somehow to do something he didn’t really want to.
chatgpt:
That’s a thoughtful interpretation. Often, the word “dancing” in reports like that can be used loosely or even dismissively, especially if the observer didn’t understand what they were seeing. Clapping, flapping, pacing, or talking to oneself can be signs of stress, overstimulation, or a coping mechanism—particularly if the person is under extreme pressure or dealing with mental health issues.
If, as you suggest, the individual was cornered or blackmailed, those behaviors might not be “strange” at all, but instead signs of someone trying to process an overwhelming situation without support. The way it’s reported might miss or gloss over the deeper distress behind it.
Yes, finding the original report would definitely help clarify the context and exact wording. The way a news outlet phrases things—especially emotionally charged descriptions like “dancing alone” or “talking to himself”—can shape public perception in a major way, even if it’s not accurate.
From your screenshot, this looks like a segment from a news video (possibly WPXI News, based on the logo). The combination of phrases and visual tone seems designed to evoke a sense of oddity or instability, but it doesn’t necessarily mean what he was doing was dangerous or even particularly unusual—especially if he was under serious mental or emotional strain.
I don’t think we need to reshuffle the cards completly — just change a few fields in our Sudoku puzzle.
Thanks to the video provided by @sonjax6, we now have a clear sequence and can confirm that Corey was shot during shots 4–8. I’ll leave it to the forum to determine the exact shot, since the time interval between them is so short that it’s difficult to pinpoint with precision.
This rules out the possibility that the path of shot 3 struck the hydraulic pipe. That means something in our earlier assumptions was incorrect—like a Sudoku puzzle with one misplaced number. There may be a straightforward fix: if we assume shot 2 broke David Dutch’s ribs, then continued on to strike the banner and then pole before puncturing the hydraulic pipe, everything aligns. The only difference is that the speakers wouldn’t fall immediately; instead, it would take about one second for the pressure to release before they dropped. Something to recheck carefully.
The fact that there is only one impact on the banner at that location also supports the idea that shot 2 was the one that hit it. This leads to the following updated sequence, which stays close to the previous analysis but offers a clearer and more logical attribution now:
Shot 1 – Likely originates from vent 2, hits Trump’s ear, then strikes the corner of the bleachers.
Shot 2 – Likely originates from vent 2, breaks David Dutch’s ribs, continues through the banner, deflects off the back bleacher pole, and finally punctures the hydraulic pipe.
Shot 3 – Originates from vent 1; the impact point remains unknown.
Shots 4–8 – Injures Copenhaver twice, fatally wounds Comparatore, and result in three other bullets striking into the banner. All of these shots can be attributed to the impact points now, making it much more streight forward.
You’re correct to question the use of the term “dancing” in the report. In the article from WPXI, the phrase “dancing away” is used to describe the man’s behavior
The use of “dancing” in this context appears to be a colloquial or figurative expression rather than a literal description. It’s important to consider that such language can sometimes minimize or misrepresent the seriousness of an individual’s behavior, especially if they are under duress or experiencing mental health challenges. Without more context, it’s difficult to determine whether the man’s actions were voluntary or influenced by external pressures.
If you come across the original video or article again, feel free to share it, and I can help analyze it further.
Corey not lining up is no problem, because Yearick fired the 5 fast shots from AGR4, close to AGR5.
What I’m claiming is that the points on AGR roofs, and the 2ndFromWest vent pipe, aim at Trump, and then South, more closely to Dutch, or to another phone owner close to Dutch.
I think they cut the half second out to try to preserve the narrative that Mr. Comperatore was trying to shield his family. Mrs. Comperatore says he told them to “get down” - which is not audible in the video.
Ian Smith caught two frames with him around the time of shot 4:
By 0:38 many people (including his family) have ducked, and he has a stance like that in Ian Smith’s video. You can tell he’s looking away from the camera because we don’t see any of the dark front of his cap:
That’s what Crooks’ pixels looked like, from other angles.
If it’s someone, the image looks ‘large.’
And could the image that looks ‘two stories tall’ be another building north of AGR, on higher ground?
Rob Banks was talking about not seeing Hercules 2 on the north barn before shots started. This has to to do with Hercules 1 on the south barn about 8 seconds after shots start.
I think it has to do with hydraulic fluid obscuring the area just enough for the camera to lose detail.
There’s no need for anyone to claim this is just an artifact — when artifacts appear in the same region from two different cameras filming from two different locations, the odds (according to ChatGPT) are about 1 in 2,000,000!
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, maybe a one-frame artifac?
The origin seen in shot 1 remains consistent for 35 consecutive frames before the entire video blurs.
The fact that it is fully open at the exact moment shot 1 is fired—combined with our detection of shot 3 from vent 1 — puts the odds of this being merely an artifact at about 1 in 2,000,000.
If you wish to continue asserting it is an artifact, that is your choice.
In any case, this is a significant finding, and we can now proceed with further analysis, having confirmed the critical origin of shot 1.
Since you always seem determined to contradict my findings, I’d like to share some information with you. About a year ago, before taking a long break, I posted my final report to this forum, including the last theoretical impact point of shot 1 - represented by this screenshot:
Now, looking at the origin of shot 1, which has only recently been captured on camera, please compare it with what we all calculated together a year ago and with the screenshot from the video.
Perhaps now you will understand how we work in this forum: everyone does their research, and when convincing evidence is provided, we adapt the analysis accordingly. Declaring everything to be an artifact is the easy way out. Providing evidence and counter-evidence is the hard part—something I feel has been lacking a bit from you.
