Nothing is wrong — I get the exact same result using your method.
I used an extract of the RSBN video, just as you did. I added timestamps, then extracted the audio and measured the timing of the “crack” from shot 2 at 61.937 seconds (00:01:01.937).
If you are using QuickTime, I assume you have a Mac. FFmpeg also works on Mac, and it is free. In the future, you should always add timestamps to your video before making claims — it will save everyone a whole lot of time in this forum.
In any case, we have now provided sufficient proof that it was shot 1 which struck Trump’s ear, not shot 2.
To better understand each other, may I ask you a few very simple questions step by step, so we can work toward common ground? I think we already agree on about 85% of the points. It would be great if we could raise that to 99%, so we share a clear common view on this shooting.
The main goal is to challenge the lone-shooter narrative — specifically, the claim that Crooks fired all eight shots.
Let’s start simple and straightforward:
This X post from July 19, 2024 (six days after the shooting) shows a video of an impact on the top railing of the bleachers.
By looking at the video mentioned above, can we agree that the top corner of the bleachers was struck by a bullet? I’m not asking which shot it was or from where it came — just this single point.
I don’t use time stamps but I use QuickTime’s elapsed time indicator, which allows me to display the elapsed time or the number of frames elapsed.
At 0:24, I have 706 frames, and at 0:25, 736, so that’s 30 frames per second.
Trump starts raising his hand at 725 frames, or about 0:24.63, or 0.2 seconds after the second crack at 0:24.431.
I don’t know why I’m not getting the same result as you.
Press the period (.) key to advance frame by frame; it takes exactly 60 keystrokes to move one second on the timeline, so the original video is definitly 60f/s.
If you can’t even download a YouTube video correctly, that suggests you don’t have the skills for this type of analysis and you’re wasting everyone’s time.
Suggestions of an explosive device, planted in the rail, were made by some.
I think the rail top was hit by a suppressed, subsonic gunshot, because I heard ‘dozens’ of them in Dayve’s audio…at least 5 of those shots were fired after Trump’s words, "…couple of months old, that chart… "
It’s possible I could agree, but it’s no advantage to my case.
Deal suggestion: I’ll agree, if you agree that Copenhaver’s arm ‘raised’, or ‘began to raise’, less than 2 frames after Trump’s ear impact frame(from Corey’s 24 frame per second video.)
At this stage, we’re not debating — we’re simply confirming clear, well-documented facts in a straightforward, step-by-step manner.
We will get to Copenhaver and all the other details in due time.
By the way, apologies if I’ve missed something, but what exactly is your case? Since you refer so often to the Copenhaver court case, are you actually defending Copenhaver in court? It would help us better understand your motivation in this forum if you could share more details about “your case”.
@sonjax6, any comments from your side would be greatly appreciated.
Can we agree that, in the video mentioned above, we can clearly see a bullet striking the corner of the bleachers?
My ‘case’ is that almost everyone reporting on this crime is lying.
I refer to Copenhaver most, because he was shot twice, so 100% more than any other victim.
An apology for all the lies would be enough, and I’ll give credit to NBC’s Tom Llamas, for not lying.
Oh yes, I agree the railing was hit by a bullet, at or very close to to the same time that Trump was struck.
I’m pretty sure this is one of the videos with AI generated people in the foreground - although it’s not from the media area. I looked at the sightlines - specifically what part of the barn is right behind the left side of the TV and what part of the crane is behind the right side of the TV, drew them on an aerial photo, and found out this video seems to have been taken from crazy far back in the audience - even further than RagTagVagabond.
As far as the faked people in the foreground: here are a couple of goofs:
At least something loud happened, several people turned their head toward.
(Maybe someone raised the phone by selfie-stick. Even higher than raised hand held phones. Is it possible? Qas it allowed to carry inside the venue?)
There were a lot of inaccurate information. (And even the State Police didn’t want to correct the testimony.)
First it was suggested by @rob-banks
then I mentioned that my “best” engineer used to be an extra in several movies (decades ago) and remote controlled explosives were attached to their cloths to immitate got shot. (By the way there was a remote control unit on the roof - allegedly assigned to the explosives in the car.)
There are several unidentified cracks.
Identification could be by correlating those samples with known source sounds, but the audio compression lowers the chance of true identification.
What is super conspiracy? They (probably) checked the quality of phone(y) video evidences in advance.
That extract ( 8 seconds long) has not the same sound that the X video ( 33 s long) before the first shot. Something (your metal to metal noise?) has been added to the audio recording. It’s clearly visible with Audacity’s audio extract.
The segment between about 5.6 s and 5.8 s in the X video has been replaced by the segment between 5.6 s and 6.3 s in the extract.
Yes, but we shouldn’t use the smoke as a reference point. Instead, we need to focus on dynamic actions that can be measured accurately. That’s why I added time stamps to the videos for comparison.
This means that in the first video, the time difference between the bullet impact and the girl lifting her hand is 0.234 seconds.
Now, looking at the second video, we have 18.051 seconds for the impact and 18.285 seconds for the hand movement — again, a difference of 0.234 seconds:
It’s from a different microphone location.
I’ll restore it to Corey’s video too, with some of the dustball evidence which, obviously, was removed.
And all of the restored evidence will be at my website, with the hosting rent paid, for the next 200 years.
I’m not convinced. The two audio tracks are identical except for the places I indicated. The footage is from the same smartphone, it can’t be a different microphone, you’re talking nonsense!
