Hercules 2 and Copenhaver have been analyzed.
Your offer to analyze Bald Man is helpful, because you’ve tacitly admitted to seeing a Bald Man, and you need to distract your “audience”(4 people, out of 8,000,000,000 people) with a suppressed gunshot heard by Hercules 2…and heard by me…
Unlike your conversation partner, you have the ability to download a video and process it with FFmpeg.
The following command adds both frame numbers and timestamps to each frame of the video:
.\ffmpeg -i "Moshe Schwartz - New video from the moment shots rang out at the Trump rally.mp4" ^
-vf "drawtext=text='Frame %{n}':x=400:y=270:fontsize=28:fontcolor=yellow:box=1:boxcolor=black@0.5,
drawtext=text='Time %{pts\:hms}':x=400:y=300:fontsize=28:fontcolor=yellow:box=1:boxcolor=black@0.5" ^
-c:a copy "Moshe Schwartz - New video from the moment shots rang out at the Trump rally with frames and time stamps.mp4"
Running this command overlays two elements on the video:
- Frame counter – showing the exact frame number (
Frame %{n}). - Timestamp – showing the presentation time in hours, minutes, and seconds (
Time %{pts\:hms}).
With these overlays, you can step through the video frame by frame to verify its continuity.
Upon inspection, it is clear that the footage is a continuous video recorded at 30 frames per second.
Regarding the second video of Trump:
After the first shot grazes his ear, Trump reaches up and touches his ear approximately 0.968 seconds later.
The sooner everyone confirms this, the sooner we can close this point and move on to the next topic, such as the bald man.
DJT is still ‘My President’, and Commander In Chief, and I want him to have quicker reflexes, so I’ll hope for the 0.668 second, from bullet impact to ear touch…that estimated 3 days ago.
I re-saved the X file, named it moshe.mp4.
Then, I changed moshe.mp4 into roger.mp4 with the following command:
ffmpeg -i moshe.mp4 -itsoffset 00:00:00.533 -i moshe.mp4 -c:v copy -c:a copy -map 0:a:0 -map 1:v:0 roger.mp4
That may be 1 crude way to forward the audio, of the same file, 0.533 second.
(equivalent of 16 frames).
moshe.mp4, played “frame by frame”, with left mouse clicks of my VLC player(in Debian Trixie), needs 30 mouse clicks to move the clock timer 1 second, to “00:01”.
roger.mp4, played “frame by frame”, with left mouse clicks of my VLC player(in Debian Trixie), needs 16 mouse clicks to move the clock timer 1 second, to “00:01”.
Thank you for saving me time on this topic. You are correct — the initial frames of a video are not presented accurately in VLC or QuickTime, as explained by ChatGPT:
Why VLC shows “2s” when the real PTS is ~1.5s
- MP4/H.264 streams often have edit lists or B-frame reordering. This means that the first “presented” frame doesn’t start at exactly 0, but maybe at 0.5 s.
- ffmpeg’s %{pts} overlay shows the true presentation timestamps embedded in the stream.
- VLC (and many other players) will normalize those timestamps for convenience: they shift the displayed clock so the first frame starts at 00:00:00.000. That’s why VLC shows a “nice” 2.0 s when the internal PTS might actually be 1.5 s.
So VLC isn’t “wrong” — it’s just presenting a user-friendly time base instead of exposing the raw stream PTS.
Therefore the initial seconds of a video should be interpreted with caution, as container edit lists and frame reordering can introduce timestamp offsets. However, once playback has stabilized beyond this initial interval, the presentation timestamps progress consistently.
Given that the analysis is based on relative rather than absolute timing, the results remain valid beyond the initial two-second offset associated with presentation timestamps.
Accordingly, the observation is sustained: a projectile impacted the bleachers railing, and 0.234 seconds thereafter, the subject’s left hand was observed at a 10° elbow position.
Were you viewing ‘this video’ directly from the X page link, or was ‘this video’ one that had some ffmpeg changes(for example, the ‘timer’ display) made to it?
It was directly from the X page link.
Ah Roger, luckily for you, ridicule doesn’t kill, otherwise you would have been dead a long time ago, depriving us of some good laughs!
You just have to wait a few days for Roger to change his mind again, this Roger is a real weather vane!
Once again, how do you know the instant when this shot grazes the Trump’s ear and how do you know it’s the first shot?
Actually VLC player starts playing immediatelly when I open a file. So I had to stop it first, rewind to the beginning. And that was not the first frame - but empty. I had to step one to get the first frame. And additional 15 to get one second increment. Ouh, video stream decoding should be added to Muttley’s TODO list.
Thanks for sharing the sequence of images. From what I can observe, the images appear to show a blurry or pixelated motion of a dust ball or smoke puff, with a potential splitting into two forms. Given that, you’re asking how a single dust/smoke ball might diverge into two, here are some possible explanations:
1. Air Currents or Turbulence
- Dust or smoke is extremely light and sensitive to changes in air movement.
- An initial single puff can split if it encounters turbulent air (like from a fan, vent, passing object, or a person moving).
- The surrounding airflow could push different parts of the puff in slightly different directions, giving the appearance of it splitting into two.
2. Rotational Vortex or Shear Forces
- If the dust puff entered a rotating or shearing airflow, the center of the puff might be stretched apart.
- This can tear the puff into separate segments that appear as distinct moving objects, especially in a fast sequence.
Oh, a turbulence in airflow can very unlikely maintain the shape of the puff of smoke and split it into two.
3. Optical Illusion from Motion Blur or Depth
- From a certain angle, depth and lighting may cause a single object to appear as two, especially if parts of the puff reflect or obscure light differently.
- Low resolution or motion blur can also visually separate connected parts.
I think the other puff is only shadow. However the brightness/contrast is not aligned with this idea.
4. Frame-by-Frame Evolution
- In your image sequence, we see:
- A single dense gray puff at first.
- Then what seems to be a slight elongation or duplication of the lighter parts.
- Finally, a clearer separation—two visibly defined shapes.
This could be interpreted as either:
- One object splitting into two, or
- Two smaller objects that were always there, becoming more visible as they separate.
1. Is the “second” object just a shadow?
You’re right to challenge this idea. Here’s how we can assess it:
Shadow Hypothesis – Why It’s Unlikely:
- Brightness and contrast, as you said, do not match typical shadows:
- The “second” puff has similar texture and opacity to the main dust object.
- Shadows would typically appear softer, darker, or more transparent, depending on the light source.
- The angle and environment: If a strong directional light were causing a shadow, you’d expect:
- A consistent orientation and alignment across all frames.
- Possibly shadows from other objects in the same direction, which we don’t clearly see.
- Motion: In your frame sequence, the second “object” seems to move independently, not just track as a projection of the first.
Conclusion:
It’s highly unlikely that the second object is a shadow. The lighting, form, and motion suggest it’s a physical object—possibly another dust puff or a fragment from the same origin.
2. Inferring a Hidden Point of Origin / Time of Creation
This is a very useful clue.
You’re saying:
- There’s a concealed origin, likely obscured by a flash, obstruction, or edit.
- The dust appeared after an event (possibly a bullet impact).
- The goal is to work backwards from the dust expansion to determine when it was created.
Hypothesis: Two Dust Balls Created Near-Simultaneously
That would explain:
- Why the two puffs are so close initially.
- Why they diverge slightly or follow slightly offset trajectories.
- Why both appear equally defined and dense, even from the start.
Situation Recap
You’re:
- Analyzing a dust puff, assumed initially to be one particle cloud expanding via Brownian/random walk behavior.
- Planning to track diameter over time for back-extrapolation to the point of origin.
- Suddenly found that it’s not one, but likely two intersecting or diverging puffs—a “twain”.
Got it! If we assume that the two dust puffs are behaving as separate objects, with no significant interaction between them (a reasonable assumption for low-density dust), we can simplify the model and treat each puff as an independent expansion. Let’s break this down in the context of analyzing their expansion over time.
Key Assumptions:
- Two separate sources: The dust balls were created nearly simultaneously, but they expand independently.
- Negligible interaction: The particles within each puff interact via Brownian motion (random walk), but the two puffs don’t interfere with each other’s expansion significantly.
@sonjax6 @flamecensor
I think we found a hard evidence of simultaneous gunshots.
Dear Roger
Could you spare a few minutes of your precious time to redo this analysis with the corrected time stamps to account for the error caused by the beginning of the video not containing 30 frames in the first second?
What do you get?
under oath
Under oath, before I began my studies, we all had to swear to uphold two important commitments. However, the oath was not made to the government or the leading party (majority). The two pledges were:
- We would never speak or distribute foolish theories that do not align with our studies.
- We would never use our knowledge to deceive less-educated individuals.
I can still vividly remember these pledges, even though the exact wording of the oath has faded over time.
I cannot find it, but there are similar texts:
“I will respect and preserve the scientific integrity of the work I perform, never falsifying, misrepresenting, or plagiarizing any data. I will not deceive or mislead others in order to gain any advantage. I will uphold the principle of honest and transparent communication in my research, ensuring that my work is always conducted with a sense of responsibility toward society and the environment. I will collaborate in a spirit of mutual respect, always striving for the collective good of scientific progress, while treating my colleagues and the public with dignity.”
“I solemnly swear to uphold the ethical standards of scientific research. I pledge to maintain objectivity and rigor in all aspects of my research, to promote transparency in my methodology, and to ensure that my findings are accurately presented without distortion. I will not allow personal, financial, or political interests to compromise the integrity of my work. Above all, I will use my knowledge and skills for the benefit of humanity, ensuring that my work remains accessible, responsible, and ethically sound.”
“I solemnly swear to conduct my research with integrity, upholding the highest standards of honesty, objectivity, and accountability. I will never spread misleading or unfounded theories that could harm the pursuit of knowledge. I will not misuse my research for personal gain or to deceive others. I will seek the truth, even when it challenges my own beliefs, and I will share my findings openly, for the benefit of society and future generations of researchers.”
“I pledge to seek knowledge with integrity, to ensure that my research and its conclusions are grounded in truth, and to never knowingly contribute to misinformation or deceit. I will promote science for the greater good of humanity and for the advancement of understanding, always striving to uphold the honor of my field and never to use my knowledge for exploitation or harm. I will educate and share knowledge in a way that respects all people, without intention to manipulate or mislead.”
I will never spread misleading or unfounded theories
never knowingly contribute to misinformation or deceit
maintain objectivity and rigor in all aspects
I will not misuse my knowledge to deceive others.
never to use my knowledge for exploitation or harm
I will not deceive or mislead others in order to gain any advantage
You might add to the end: “So help me God.”
Basic MP4 File Structure:
An MP4 file consists of a sequence of atoms, which are essentially binary blocks of data. For video, the important atoms include:
ftyp(file type)moov(metadata box)
trak(track box)
mdia(media box)
minf(media information box)stbl(sample table box), which contains thestts(time-to-sample) atom. This is where the timestamps and frame durations are stored.
Approach:
- Reading and parsing MP4 atoms manually: You’ll need to traverse the MP4 file’s structure, locate the
moovatom, and then find thesttsatom that contains frame durations (in terms of time).- Timestamp Extraction: The
sttsatom contains pairs of sample count and sample delta. The delta is the time interval between frames.- Rate Change Detection: By inspecting the deltas, you can detect when the frame rate changes (i.e., when there’s a sudden difference in the delta values).
Unfortunatelly I have no time to do it today.
Explanation of the Code:
ExtractTimestampsMethod: This method reads the MP4 file, searching for themoovatom, which contains metadata. It iterates over the atoms in the file, seeking out thetrakatom and then thesttsatom.ParseMoovAtomMethod: This method parses themoovatom, which contains metadata for all tracks (video, audio, etc.). It looks for thetrakatom, which describes the properties of individual tracks.ParseTrakAtomMethod: This method parses eachtrakatom, which contains information about the track (e.g., video or audio). It looks for thesttsatom within thetrakatom.ParseSttsAtomMethod: This method parses thesttsatom, which contains the frame timing information (sample count and delta). Thedeltais the time interval between each frame or sample, and this is what you need to calculate the timestamps.ReadUInt32Method: This helper function reads a 4-byte unsigned integer from the stream.
When you said 16 video frames were missing from the video’s first second, I guessed that the audio had been started ‘early’, by the time equivalent of 16 video frames.
7786044 bytes of ‘moshe.mp4’, unchanged by me, are here:
https://superfly.co.nz/mp4/moshe.mp4
Could you see if QuickTime finds 30 frames in its first second of time?
QuickTime finds 16 frames in its first second of time.
I re-analyzed a massive video (over 11 hours of recordings) from Real America’s Voice (RAV) in which the shots against Trump are replayed four times. For each replay, I extracted the video sequence and used Audacity to watch the exact time of the cracks of shots 1 and 2, and used QuickTime to watch the moment when Trump begins to raise his hand to his ear. The results are as follows:
Excerpt 1
Crack 1: 3.628 s
Crack 2: 4.486 s
Raising hand: 5 s + 5 frames or 5.167 s
Delay compared to crack 1: 1.539 s
Delay compared to crack 2: 0.681 s
Excerpt 2
Crack 1: 16.440 s
Crack 2: 17.298 s
Raising hand: 17 s + 26 frames or 17.867 s
Delay compared to crack 1: 1.427 s
Delay compared to crack 2: 0.569 s
Excerpt 3
Crack 1: 18.881 s
Crack 2: 19.739 s
Raising hand: 20 s + 2 frames or 20.067 s
Delay from crack 1: 1.186 s
Delay from crack 2: 0.328 s
Excerpt 4
Crack 1: 41.860 s
Crack 2: 42.718 s
Raising hand: 43s + 1 frame or 43.033 s
Delay from crack 1: 1.173 s
Delay from crack 2: 0.315 s
Therefore, the time between crack 1 and the start of the hand raise varies between 1.173 s and 1.539 s, with an average of 1.33 s.
And the time between crack 2 and the start of the hand raise varies between 0.315 s and 0.681 s, with an average of 0.47 s.
The timings vary from one broadcast to the next, which shows that the audio-video synchronization exhibits slight variations, but Trump begins raising his hand about 0.5 seconds AFTER crack 2 and about 1.3 seconds after crack 1.
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions…
The initial frames of a video are not presented accurately in VLC or QuickTime, as explained by ChatGPT:
Why VLC shows “2s” when the real PTS is ~1.5s
- MP4/H.264 streams often have edit lists or B-frame reordering. This means that the first “presented” frame doesn’t start at exactly 0, but maybe at 0.5 s.
- ffmpeg’s %{pts} overlay shows the true presentation timestamps embedded in the stream.
- VLC (and many other players) will normalize those timestamps for convenience: they shift the displayed clock so the first frame starts at 00:00:00.000. That’s why VLC shows a “nice” 2.0 s when the internal PTS might actually be 1.5 s.
So when your quicktime is showing 2 seconds it is actually 1.5 seconds. I verified it by using a simple stopwatch started at 0 and stopped at 4 seconds. So Quicktime shows 4 seconds into the video but the stop watch shows 3.5 seconds.
You method with Quicktime is therefore incorrect. Why not simply use the command with ffmpeg. It puts each frame number and the exact time stamp.
Here is the simple command you need to enter and everything is clear for everybody:
.\ffmpeg -i "Moshe Schwartz - New video from the moment shots rang out at the Trump rally.mp4" ^
-vf "drawtext=text='Frame %{n}':x=400:y=270:fontsize=28:fontcolor=yellow:box=1:boxcolor=black@0.5,
drawtext=text='Time %{pts\:hms}':x=400:y=300:fontsize=28:fontcolor=yellow:box=1:boxcolor=black@0.5" ^
-c:a copy "Moshe Schwartz - New video from the moment shots rang out at the Trump rally with frames and time stamps.mp4"
Please verify this with a stopwatch: you will see that the timestamps in the first frames reported by QuickTime are incorrect, while those indicated by ffmpeg are accurate, QuickTime then reports a time with a consistent absolute offset of 0.5 seconds.
However, since our comparison focuses on dynamic actions occurring later in the video, this initial discrepancy in the first frames does not affect the analysis.
As mentioned in the previous post, QuickTime does not display the first frames correctly. For example, when QuickTime shows 1 second, the actual time is only 0.5 seconds.
Simply by listening to the video’s audio, you can pinpoint this with high accuracy: the “crack” of the first shot occurs exactly as Trump pronounces the “e” in the word “happen.”
Reading Trump’s lips, however, provides an even more reliable method than analyzing the audio track, since live broadcasts often introduce slight audio–video offsets, which can lead to additional errors and misinterpretation.
After the first shot grazes his ear, Trump reaches up and touches his ear approximately 0.968 seconds later . Can we all agree on this and move to the last part of this analysis?
1 Like