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

[sonjax6]

@roger-knight

Since we have over 10 separate recordings at different locations all capture only one shot, the default conclusion is that only one gunshot occurred.

The “default” conclusion (narrative), and the one that’s being pushed, is that Thomas Matthew Crooks fired eight shots, period. I’m going to think in print on that here for a moment. Unbelievably, the little group on X seems to be devolving into “single shooter” people, and I need to ponder how to approach them without getting blocked by more people.

There are six early impacts, only two of which can be attributed one bullet without turning to “magic bullet” theories.

The railing shot, Dutch’s injury, two injuries to Copenhaver and the telehandler shot all have to be considered separate bullets.

(It seems highly unlikely that a portion of a bullet could leave David Dutch’s body and then penetrate a steel line of 0.16" thickness, leaving a perfectly circular hole.)

If one were going with the lone shooter theory, shot 1 has to be assigned to the railing shot, shot 2 to David Dutch, and shot 3 to the telehandler. That means one has to claim that James Copenhaver wasn’t hit at all until shot 4.

(I went away to look at my pics/videos of James Copenhaver during shots 1-3). I just realized how tall those railings are. There’s a 37" or 38" bunting with another 8" or so above the seats. So that’s 46" or maybe 48" of height to the railing. Anyone who was standing in the back row and had their head and a substantial part of their torso above the railing were standing on the back row seat.

This guy just about has to be the friend James Copenhaver told he was shot, BTW. He almost certainly looks closer and lower in photos because he’s standing on bleacher floor, while Copenhaver is standing on the seat.

I’ll look for absolute proof that Mr. Copenhaver’s arm injury was before shot 4. I know that “lone shooter” people stick to their narrative until they are absolutely forced to leave it. People that are being PAID to stick with the lone shooter narrative NEVER leave it. There are a couple of guys with fairly big selling books on the JFK assassination that make their money being sellers of the lone nutter narrative. They will simply ignore the HUGE problems with their narrative.

returning to track down videos…

Found a new one! I don’t know if there is all that much new but this person was in the center bleachers and did have the camera on Trump for the first shot:

[flamecensor]

@sonjax6

a bullet could leave David Dutch’s body and then penetrate a steel

Forklift pressure hoses are generally made from rubber or thermoplastic, reinforced with layers of high-tensile steel wire or textile braid to withstand high pressures. While the reinforcement is often steel wire, steel itself is not the primary material of the entire hose; rather, it’s a composite material designed to be flexible while providing the necessary strength for the hydraulic fluid.

And the “circular” hole, to which you apparently refer, was in aluminum.

[sonjax6]

@flamecensor

Forklift pressure hoses are generally made from rubber or thermoplastic, reinforced with layers of high-tensile steel wire or textile braid to withstand high pressures. While the reinforcement is often steel wire, steel itself is not the primary material of the entire hose; rather, it’s a composite material designed to be flexible while providing the necessary strength for the hydraulic fluid.

And the “circular” hole, to which you apparently refer, was in aluminum.

What you say about forklift pressure hoses may be true, but the line that was pierced was no hose, and it wasn’t flexible. I don’t have the means to prove it was made of steel other than a highly unreliable conversation with Grok, but there would be absolutely no reason to try to save weight with that pipe, which is about the only advantage of aluminum. If that pipe were made of aluminum, someone could bash it with a tire iron, or pierce it with an ice pick, inadvertently hit it with similar force, and the thing would be unusable until expensive repairs were made.

By the way, I found a frame from Mia Kopp’s video showing the fluid right after shot 3:

It really does look like the fluid was deflected by the vinyl cover.

[flamecensor]

@sonjax6

aluminum

The shiny metal with the bullet hole looks like aluminum, which could be only an outer shield for the plumbing underneath.
“steel reinforced rubber hose” was Firefox’s AI overview answer to my question about forklift plumbing.

@sonjax6

line that was pierced was no hose, and it wasn’t flexible

I don’t know how you made that conclusion, unless you talked to the people who repaired it.
And, ‘cracked’, could have the same result as ‘pierced’.
Even rigid steel tubing, I think, could be cracked by a bullet impact.

[sonjax6]

@flamecensor

@sonjax6

line that was pierced was no hose, and it wasn’t flexible

I don’t know how you made that conclusion, unless you talked to the people who repaired it.

If we are to believe the makers of the documentary “Who Shot Trump”, the FBI took a piece of the hydraulic pipe as evidence, and this is the cut end.

[sonjax6]

Found another new video or two on TikTok, and a much better quality version of one I had seen before.

This video isn’t particularly useful, but there is one funny frame. See the photographer at right, looking kind of glum? They must have confiscated his equipment if he isn’t even trying to take any pictures as Trump passes by.

[sonjax6]

I came across this screengrab from an old peak prosperity “citizens investigation” before somebody got to Chris and made him go radio silent.

It’s based on the WHYY photograph, of course. That was from July 18 of last year. The freaking joke is that we knew where Trump was on the stage.

“Law and Crime” released this video

on July 17 of last year. It’s got c3pmeme’s video that shows Trump within a minute or so of being shot from the north. You can see the back of the lectern lines up with the front stair railing, and you can see his stance. We KNEW within a few inches how far back his head was. We KNEW: from July 18 we could have drawn a damn line on a damn photo:

It should have been obvious to anyone that a shot from “Crooks” past Trumps ear would pass almost exactly between the back of the south bleachers (just off the corner) and James Copenhaver’s arm, as shown with the blue line.

Conversely, it should have been obvious that a shot to either the back railing or Mr. Copenhaver’s arm would miss Mr. Trump’s ear by about 3 feet - which is not within the margin of error of this diagram.

But we all got sidetracked on the rising shot vs falling shot shit…

If everyone had been hammering on that before the big dogs had been pressured to go radio silent or get turned to the dark side, the FBI might have been forced to admit to a 2nd shooter by now.

[sonjax6]

No wonder the FBI isn’t releasing a report saying what was hit with shots 1, 2, 3, etc. It would really expose the truth, no matter what they try to say.

[flamecensor]

@sonjax6

If we are to believe the makers of the documentary

Thanks for the picture, and my first reaction is that I didn’t know the FBI has a length of apparently thick-walled, obviously steel pipe.
Also, one of the few photographs I have has a ‘red arrow’ drawn, and pointing to a possible 2nd hole inside.
Some people were claiming the bullet was in the hole…I can’t see it.
If I can find other pictures, I’ll add them

[roger-knight]

@sonjax6

There are six early impacts, only two of which can be attributed one bullet without turning to “magic bullet” theories.

The railing shot, Dutch’s injury, two injuries to Copenhaver and the telehandler shot all have to be considered separate bullets.

Simply attributing Copenhaver’s two injuries to the volley of shots 4–8 would avoid the “magic bullet” problem.

I still feel a bit confused about which shot hit the telehandler. Your common-sense assumption makes sense: shot 2 hit Dutch and then the telehandler does not sound right. That would suggest shot 3 hit the hydraulic pipe instead, but needs more evidence to back that.

So, from my perspective, the most plausible attribution is:

• Shot 1: Trump’s ear – deflected off the bleachers railing
• Shot 2: Dutch’s injury
• Shot 3: Telehandler (hydraulic pipe)
• Shots 4–8: Two injuries to Copenhaver and Comparatore

As you know, I prefer video evidence over testimony:

From the video, it’s clear that Copenhaver is still standing after shot 3, and he physically collapses only during the volley of shots 4–8.

I’ll go back and analyze shots 2 and 3 again to determine more precisely which one hit the pipe. Is there a chance you could consider that the shots which injured Copenhaver came from volley 4–8? If not, what makes you so convinced they must have been in the first three shots, despite his interview and his moving arm?

If we can agree that Copenhaver was injured in the 4–8 volley, then we’d have a shared understanding of all the impacts. Since your goal is to convince people on X, it’s important that we first reach internal agreement — otherwise, we risk not being taken seriously.

[phiphi-the-frenchie]

@roger-knight

Thus, we know that shot 1 impacted the bleachers at 01:18.704. To determine when shot 1 grazed Trump’s ear, we subtract 24 milliseconds, giving us 01:18.680. The next possible video frame is 01:18.662, which corresponds to one frame earlier.

No you should say:
We know that shot 1 impacted the bleachers between 01:08.671 and 01:08.704. To determine when shot 1 grazed Trump’s ear, we subtract 24 milliseconds, giving us between 01:08.647 and 01:08.680. So it could be IN THE SAME frame or 1 frame earlier.

[flamecensor]

@roger-knight

I prefer video evidence over testimony:

That’s because video evidence is easier for you to fake than testimony.

[phiphi-the-frenchie]

@roger-knight

• 01:18.662 – Shot 1 grazes Trump’s ear

• 01:18.704 – Impact debris visible at the bleacher corner, arm is still down

Sorry but I don’t see any difference between these two frames.

[kincses-zsolt]

@phiphi-the-frenchie

Sorry but I don’t see any difference between these two frames.

Not the best, since the camera was moving a little.

I tried to show the interframe changes. It should be improved - somehow.
Any “magic” idea to minimize the effect of sub-pixel motions?

+EDIT:

[phiphi-the-frenchie]

Are we sure shot 1 hits Trump’s ear?

My reasoning analyzing the Comperatore video was the following:

@phiphi-the-frenchie

My reasoning is different:
The bullet takes 146 ms to travel from Crooks to Corey, then another 31 ms to reach Trump.
For shot 1, Corey’s crack is at 1:18.657, so 1:18.688 for Trump.
For shot 2, Corey’s crack is at 1:19.513, so 1:19.544 for Trump.
Trump begins raising his hand at 1:19 + 20 frames, or between 1:19.833 and 1:19.875, or about 1.2 seconds after shot 1 and 0.3 seconds after shot 2.

So 1.2 s reaction time seems very long so I think that is shot 2 that hits Trump’s ear.

[flamecensor]

@phiphi-the-frenchie

shot 2 that hits…

…David Dutch, who turned his head to hear Shot 1 as it hit James Copenhaver.

[phiphi-the-frenchie]

@sonjax6

It should have been obvious to anyone that a shot from “Crooks” past Trumps ear would pass almost exactly between the back of the south bleachers (just off the corner) and James Copenhaver’s arm, as shown with the blue line.

Conversely, it should have been obvious that a shot to either the back railing or Mr. Copenhaver’s arm would miss Mr. Trump’s ear by about 3 feet - which is not within the margin of error of this diagram.

I don’t understand why this would prove there were two shooters.

For me it could show that Crooks was a bad shooter …

[sonjax6]

@phiphi-the-frenchie

@sonjax6

It should have been obvious to anyone that a shot from “Crooks” past Trumps ear would pass almost exactly between the back of the south bleachers (just off the corner) and James Copenhaver’s arm, as shown with the blue line.

Conversely, it should have been obvious that a shot to either the back railing or Mr. Copenhaver’s arm would miss Mr. Trump’s ear by about 3 feet - which is not within the margin of error of this diagram.

I don’t understand why this would prove there were two shooters.

For me it could show that Crooks was a bad shooter …

Seriously? He was such a bad shooter his bullet deflected by more than 3 degrees after hitting Trump’s ear?

[roger-knight]

@phiphi-the-frenchie

Sorry but I don’t see any difference between these two frames.

Many participants in this forum struggle to accept that the first shot struck the corner of the bleachers. Some claim that Copenhaver’s arm was hit by the first shot, while others suggest the presence of a suppressed weapon—even though no such sound is detectable in any of the available audio recordings.

I am presenting clear forensic video evidence that the first shot grazed Trump’s ear before striking the bleachers’ corner.

At frame 1:18:704, the impact debris from the first shot becomes visible, especially against the white section of the banner, where the contrast makes it stand out.

At frame 1:18:662, you can observe distinct movement involving Trump’s ear. Based on calculations, subtracting 24 ms places us within approximately one frame of alignment between the ear impact and the bleacher corner impact. Even if we allow for a margin of one frame, the central conclusion remains unchanged: the first shot grazes Trump’s ear and then hits the bleachers.

When the sequence is viewed as an animation, this progression becomes much clearer and easier to follow:

Do you agree with this evidence, or is there a specific point that you find unconvincing?

[phiphi-the-frenchie]

Ok now I see what you mean, I haven’t understood.
So maybe it means that the bullet that hit Trump’s ear didn’t hit anything else.