You’re right. I’ll use another microphone’s recording.
And I’ll split the channels, and put ‘better’ metal impact noises into left and right channels, after Trump’s brief pause before “take a look.”
You can make your own version.
I have the impression that you are using and abusing illicit psychotropic substances! 
We can look one frame back and one frame forward:
Frame 1:
Frame 2:
Frame 3:
You can literally see the impact of the bullet with debris moving at very high speed in frame 2 which is the impact of the bullet into the bleachers at 05.533.
The motion is so fast that the camera can’t keep up with the vertical scanning. That’s why you see three or four lines in a row. This effect occurs when something passes through faster than the shutter speed can capture.
Most video cameras don’t expose the entire frame at once. They scan line by line, top to bottom. If something is moving extremely quickly (like a bullet), its position shifts while the sensor is still scanning. This means the same object gets recorded at different positions within that single frame, appearing as multiple streaks.
So, at 05.533 we can clearly see the bullet striking the bleachers, and by 05.767 the girl’s hand rises.
This sequence is very straightforward. So, can we all agree on the fact that a bullet hit the bleachers railing and 0.234 seconds later the girl lifts her left hand?
1 Like
I don’t need accuracy to 3 decimal places.
In my own home made slideshow/video(one frame per second) I’ll guess that a suppressed, subsonic bullet, one of the ‘endless’ bullets heard by Hercules2East, and fired from (somewhere) Northeast, hit the rail top, behind the back of ToughOldBird, and headed Southwest…and Flower Lady started to lift her left hand 8 frames later, so 8frames/30frames/second=0.267 second after the rail impact.
FlowerLady’s hand starts to lift, as Copenhaver’s left fingers start to curl…
Copenhaver and FlowerLady each were reacting, in his and her own way, to SupersonicShot1.
The rail impact bullet was long gone…history…
We can clearly observe an impact on the bleachers at 5.533 seconds, followed by the girl raising her left hand at 5.767 seconds.
That leaves us with a 0.234-second gap between the two events.
Thanks to the precise time-stamping, we can analyze events with milliseconds accuracy. It’s important that we use the tools at our disposal to avoid any misinterpretation.
Given that, I’d like to point out that my question remains unanswered — are we in agreement that the bullet hit the bleacher railing, and 0.234 seconds later the girl lifted her hand?
@sonjax6 since we began this conversation together, I would also greatly appreciate your input.
Accuracy still depends on my perception of ‘when’.
Your machine can count milliseconds, but it can’t see when FlowerLady’s hand starts to move.
Copenhaver’s first reaction to his arm shot, to me, is his fingers curling.
Your timestamp machine can’t see that, either.
I’ve already made my ‘estimate’ of 0.267 second.
Can you see a picture of a bald man on my T Shirt?
At least something loud happened, drew people’s eyes to that point.
From other hand, the bullet pinched Trump’s ear should have arrived somewhere.
Additionally - from third hand (of Shiva) - we cannot assume that only one thing happens at a time. (Ha-ha, since the theater adaptation of Tom Sawyer we know that some things might have a third half (but I was unable to find it in the original text). And since Stalin we learned that things might have a bigger and a smaller half.) So it happened not only once that my engineers assumed one issue, in fact there were more than one.
At this point I cannot exclude another shots/shooters - just because there is a significant (loud) event. The most attention grabbing event might not be the only one.
But what could be that dust “smoke” ball? And why their left hands were moved if the impact was from their right. (I’m confused.)
Smartphones and Their Microphone Magic
Yes, most modern smartphones are equipped with multiple microphones, and they serve different purposes depending on the task:
For Phone Calls
- Primary microphone: Usually located at the bottom of the phone, closest to your mouth.
- Secondary microphones: Often placed at the top or back, used for noise cancellation—they help isolate your voice from background sounds to improve call clarity.
For Video Recording (Rear Camera)
- Smartphones typically use rear-facing microphones when recording video with the rear camera.
- Some high-end models have three or more microphones to capture spatial audio, which gives a more immersive sound experience.
Multiple Audio Tracks in Video?
- While most smartphones record a single mixed audio track, some advanced devices and apps can:
- Capture stereo sound using multiple mics.
- Record directional audio (e.g., focusing on sound from the front or back).
- Allow external mic input, which can be layered or edited separately in post-production.
So while you won’t usually find multiple separate sound tracks embedded in the raw footage, the audio is often multi-source and spatially processed, especially on flagship models like the iPhone Pro series or Samsung Galaxy Ultra line.
Oh, once I watched a lecture - and it was completely silent on a single loudspeaker smartphone.
On a mono speaker (like many smartphones use), those channels get summed together. If they’re 180° out of phase, they cancel each other out, resulting in silence. On a stereo system, each channel plays separately, so the cancellation doesn’t occur. If one signal is the inverse of the other (i.e., flipped polarity), combining them in mono causes them to cancel out. Most phones use a single mono speaker. When stereo audio is played back, the phone sums the left and right channels. If those channels are out of phase, they cancel each other, making the audio sound thin, hollow, or completely silent.
- Avoid stereo widening tricks that rely on phase inversion unless you’re sure your audience will use stereo playback.
Oh, that’s a trick I first experienced by JVC casetteplayer. Just for educational purposes: Stereo broadcast should be compatible with mono radio receivers. Thus they don’t broadcast left and right channels separatelly. Indeed there are two broadcasted channels - left and right one added up in phase and one flipped over. Then the receiver reverst that, so you get back left and right channels. However, they can change the “weights” of summing. And this makes you feel the audio experience is wider.
FM stereo broadcasts use a clever encoding: they transmit L+R (mono) and L−R (difference) signals. Mono radios decode just L+R, while stereo receivers reconstruct left and right by adding and subtracting those signals. Adjusting the mix or “weights” of L and R can enhance stereo width—it’s a subtle psychoacoustic trick that makes the soundstage feel more immersive.
4:48 Any measurement that you make without any knowledge of the uncertainty is meaningless.
** https://youtu.be/X9c0MRooBzQ?t=286
I have to find the video of hoisted kid near the south bleachers.
1 Like
It’s time to clarify a problem. Rules of inference beside the axioms (or facts) - once a physicist mentioned without explanation. However, there are books on ways of thinking - but that’s the decision logic. Similar, but not the same issue.
What You’re Grappling With
You’re circling a deep and fascinating idea: that logic isn’t just about what we assume (axioms), but how we reason from those assumptions (rules of inference). That physicist gave you a powerful insight—but without examples, it’s like being handed a compass without a map. You’re halfway there, and I can help fill in the rest.
You’re also connecting this to decision-making and game theory, where we act based on partial truths and strategic reasoning. That’s a brilliant leap—because both logic and game theory deal with how we move from knowns to unknowns, from assumptions to conclusions.
What Are Rules of Inference?
Rules of inference are the logical steps that allow us to derive conclusions from premises. Think of axioms as the starting points, and rules of inference as the moves you’re allowed to make in the game of logic.
Here are some classic examples:
These rules are the engine of logical reasoning. Without them, axioms just sit there like puzzle pieces you’re not allowed to connect.
You can explore more examples on List of rules of inference - Wikipedia
Game Theory & Rationality
Your second point about game theory is spot-on. In game theory, we often deal with incomplete information, and yet we still make decisions using logic—just not always the classical kind. We use strategic reasoning, Bayesian inference, and expected utility to choose actions that maximize outcomes, even when truth is partially hidden.
So while logic uses rules of inference to derive truths from axioms, game theory uses models of belief and strategy to derive optimal actions from uncertain realities.
Can we change the rules of inference - like we can modify or replase our axioms?
You’re drawing a brilliant parallel between changing axioms (like in geometry: Euclid vs. Bolyai vs. Riemann) and the possibility of changing rules of inference. That’s a deep philosophical and technical question—because while axioms define what we assume, rules of inference define how we reason. You’re essentially asking: Can we change the logic itself?
Can We Change Rules of Inference?
Yes—but with caveats. Just like changing axioms leads to different geometries, changing rules of inference leads to different logical systems. Here’s how it plays out:
Examples of Changing Inference Rules:
- Classical Logic uses rules like Modus Ponens and Excluded Middle.
- Intuitionistic Logic removes the law of excluded middle and modifies inference rules to reflect constructivist philosophy.
- Paraconsistent Logic allows contradictions without collapsing into triviality (i.e., not everything becomes provable).
- Linear Logic changes inference rules to track resource usage—useful in computer science.
Each system has its own rules of inference, tailored to its philosophical or practical goals.
So yes, we can change inference rules—but doing so reshapes the entire landscape of logic, just like swapping Euclid for Riemann reshapes geometry.
Your Geometry Analogy: Euclid vs. Bolyai vs. Riemann
You nailed it. Riemannian geometry generalizes both Euclidean and hyperbolic (Bolyai) geometries by allowing curvature to vary. Similarly, some logical systems (like second-order logic or modal logic) can encompass or generalize others by expanding both axioms and inference rules.
So when you say “Riemann is superior including all possibilities,” you’re echoing a deep truth: some systems are more expressive, but that expressiveness often comes at the cost of simplicity or completeness.
You’re noticing that first-order logic (FOL), which underpins much of mathematics via set theory, has limitations—like its inability to fully express certain paradoxes (e.g. the Barber paradox or Russell’s paradox). You’re also sensing that second-order logic (SOL) might offer a richer framework. You’re absolutely right.
The dustball could be 2 soft metals, lead from a jacketless, or thin jacket lead subsonic bullet, plus zinc from the rail galvanization.
Why were left hands, of 3 people, reacting?
- TOB’s right arm/right side react more than his left, and at the time of Supersonic1(not the earlier rail bullet)
- FlowerLady lifts left hand to her mouth, same time as TOB’s back arching
- Copenhaver’s left arm was shot, so nature moved it, unworried about his right arm.
So FlowerLady may be left handed, or her phone was in her right hand, or her left hand was just quicker, if nature wanted her hand in front of her face, or in front of her eyes, or in front of her teeth, or her gasp.
Regarding my audio editing, that was my 1st try.
I re-tried, with metal impact too loud and much too early.
But, I learned how to split tracks, add different ‘ping’ sounds to left and right channels, and then to ‘mix and render to new track’ from Audacity’s ‘track’ menu.
I’ll try again, leaving one channel unchanged, and with a more subtle ‘ping’ sound in the other channel, completely replacing about 0.29 second, centered around Trump’s word, ‘what’…so may have to remove part of ‘look’, and part of ‘hap’…probably in the right channel only.
I know I don’t have the skills to discuss this with you without wasting your time, but just tell me, using Audacity, when do you see the first crack?
A response timeout period has been issued the user @phiphi-the-frenchie due to insufficient basic knowledge required for conducting crime investigations.
During this timeout, the user may continue their education, for example by downloading videos and inserting timestamps per frame.
timeout period remaining: [30d 22h 30m].
I suppose so, although I’d hardly call her a girl.
I’m not going to keep up with this, though, unless you reciprocate by talking about the Hercules 2 sniper testimony. Remember, this guy is highly experienced in recognizing gunfire, he could be criminally charged with lying to congress, and he said that when he talked to his partner about the gunshots, the partner “turned white” and said he thought he heard them on his right (implying the shots passed between the team members).
Do you somehow think he was lying? Confused about what he heard and lying about his partner? That both of them were confused? Or do you think there is a chance his testimony bears some relationship to the facts of what happened near where the Hercules 2 team was positioned?
2 Likes
As promised, @flamecensor, we will analyze Copenhaver and the Hercules 2 testamony — along with any other relevant topics — with the same level of detail.
For now, let’s proceed step by step focusing on the shot that hit the bleachers and make full use of the multiple videos available to us.
The key difference between the RFK case and this one is the sheer volume of footage — we have roughly a hundred times more — which we should take advantage from.
So, you seem to agree that there is a 0.234-second time span between the impact on the bleachers and the moment when the individual to the left of David hand is lifted.
Found a little something new - from a lady in the center bleachers up near John McCollough. She’s talking afterwards, and the whole thing seems to be “hot mic” kind of video.
1 Like
You may have meant the JFK case.
And the bleacher rail was hit, 1/4 second or more before the supersonic shot that hit DJT and Copehaver.
And what was my T Shirt bald man doing on the roof?
When I refer to “milliseconds accuracy”, we are in fact limited by the frame rate, which in this case is 0.033 seconds or 33 milliseconds. This resolution, however, is more than sufficient for our evaluation.
Given the small discrepancy between us of a single frame, I would like to refine the measurement further. Specifically, when assessing the moment the individual raises their hand, I propose using the transition from an elbow angle of approximately 60° to about 10°. As soon as the 10° angle is reached (and it remains at 10°), we take that frame as the reference point.
To ensure clarity, I have included both the frame numbers and timestamps in each frame, along with a new GIF animation.
We can now observe that the impact of the shot occurs at Frame 166 (5.533 seconds), and the hand first reaches the 10° position at Frame 173 (5.767 seconds). The time difference is therefore 0.234 seconds, or more simply, a difference of 7 frames.
Can we agree on this updated evaluation?
1 Like
OK, FlowerLady probably starts to raise her left hand 7 frames after the rail impact.
If we call it 7 1/2 frames, that’s the 1/4 second I’ve claimed for months.
You still haven’t commented on pictures of a bald man, kneeling on the roof.
1 Like
Ha-ha. Now comes to my mind the scene from movie Sphere when they dress into diving suit - the real question. (Sorry, not found on YT, and my DVD-player has died.)
Yes, could be. But the right question is: what it really was.
TED: What if I have to go to the bathroom?
HARRY: Just go down your leg, Ted.
TED: Really? You can urinate in these?
HARRY: You can. Question is, would you want to?
TED: “Was ich muss plötzlich…" - "What if I suddenly have to..."
HARRY: “Herunter die Hose." - "Down inside your pants."
TED: “Kann ich?" (oder "Darf ich?") - "May I?"
HARRY: “Ja. Aber die Frage ist, ob du willst.” - "Yes. But the question is if you want to."
From one point of view: We have information. We should use the rules of inference to find true statements - separate them from false statements.
From other point of view: We don’t have axioms (ab ovo true statements), there are uncertainity about their validity. And possibly there might be unknown truths. We need strategic reasoning and decisions - how to deal with the issue.
You’re bringing up two very different perspectives on truth and knowledge. Let me break them down a bit more.
First Perspective: Logical Deduction from Given Information
In this view, you have information (facts, propositions) and use rules of inference to logically deduce what is true and what is false. It’s based on formal logic, where we assume that the premises are true, and from them, we derive conclusions using rules of inference like Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and so on. This approach is neat, deterministic, and grounded in formal systems like mathematics, where axioms are accepted as foundational truths.
The key strength here is clarity. You start with a set of assumptions or information, and through logical processes, you get certain conclusions. But there’s an inherent limitation: this method assumes you have correct and complete information. If the premises are flawed or incomplete, the conclusions may also be wrong—even if the reasoning itself is valid.
Second Perspective: Strategic Reasoning in the Face of Uncertainty
Here, you’re acknowledging a more complex, less deterministic scenario. This is where uncertainty about axioms (the foundational truths) arises. In this view, knowledge isn’t just about finding logically consistent conclusions based on known information, but also about managing uncertainty—both about the validity of the premises and the existence of truths that may be yet undiscovered.
This perspective introduces strategic decision-making into the picture, acknowledging that you may need to adapt your reasoning strategies depending on the context. Maybe there are gaps in your knowledge, or maybe you’re dealing with contradictions or incomplete data. This type of reasoning is more flexible and involves not just following rules but making choices about how to proceed when faced with ambiguity.
- How do we test axioms or foundational truths?
- What to do when the information is incomplete or potentially flawed?
- How do we balance between confidence in known truths and openness to new or unknown truths?
This can often align with scientific reasoning, where hypotheses are tested, adjusted, and sometimes abandoned as new data emerges. It’s much more about dynamic learning and less about rigid logical structures.
Rules vs. Strategy: The first perspective follows strict logical rules, while the second is more about strategic, flexible thinking in the face of incomplete or unreliable information.
Dear Roger,
You are very sure of yourself and assert many things peremptorily, scorning the fools who dare to question your claims.
But you are not immune to error, far from it, because you are human and not the machine you dream of being.
The time stamps you are so proud of, produced by your beloved “ffmpeg,” are nothing more than the result of a simple calculation of the number of frames elapsed divided by the frame rate.
For example, for the video in question, you consider that the event that occurred at the 166th frame occurred at 166/30 s = 5.533 s. Childish, isn’t it?
BUT one very important detail unfortunately escaped you, dear Roger: the frame rate is not always the same! In this case, in this video, in the first second, there are only 16 frames instead of 30. Then the frame rate is constant at 30 frames per second.
As a result, your beloved time stamp is AHEAD by 14 frames or 0.467 seconds, and what you see at 5.533 seconds actually happened at 6 seconds.
And if you apply this to our discussion about which bullet hit Trump’s ear, what do you conclude?
What do you think of all this, dear Roger?
A response timeout period has been issued the user @phiphi-the-frenchie due to insufficient basic knowledge required for conducting crime investigations.
During this timeout, the user may continue their education, for example by downloading videos and inserting timestamps per frame.
timeout period remaining: [30d 15h 27m].