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

[phiphi-the-frenchie]

@roger-knight

Here is also something interesting:

Looking at this photo, it’s obvious the FBI wanted to conceal the impact. We can clearly see they pulled up the banner and tied a black string to cover it. If we had had this information a year ago, it would have saved us a great deal of time! Still no ‘there’ there?

But I remain convinced that the truth will prevail.

Look at this photo:

You can see that the black string is already in place and was not installed by the FBI to hide a bullet hole!

[kincses-zsolt]

@greg_n

but I’m certainly no echo-propagation expert

Well, apparently it is much like electromagnetic field calculations. Except the light could have two polarizations, seems very similar. These complicated calculations needed only around edges, corners. Far away we can turn back to ray tracing. I had a long discussion with AI - which not makes me to be an expert. Anyway, I will try.

[greg_n]

This concept and formula are outside my limited areas of expertise. I think what you are saying is that it is perfectly normal for sound to refract around objects (like a rooftop) that are blocking direct line-of-sight, and that there are mathematical models that can be done. If I’ve got that right, it’s certainly an interesting possibility, but not one I’m capable of delving into. However, I won’t let my ignorance keep me from postulating a guess: The amount of time that it would take for a muzzle blast to propagate from crook’s shooting position to the Source 3 & 4 recorders, even though it had to bend a little bit around the edge of the roof, would be very similar to the straight-line distance. Or, if we wanted to be a bit more precise for our particular scenario, we would add up these two distances:

1. Rifle muzzle to edge of roof
2. Edge of roof to the recorder’s position

Do you concur?

[kincses-zsolt]

Essentially you’re right.

What we can expect, two things. The sound can propagate behind the corner. And there might be bands of destructive interference. But it will not change much the time delay, just extends the “line of visibility” - or line of audibility.

[flamecensor]

@kincses-zsolt

an intuitive illusion that instantaneous frequencies do exist. But they do not.

Even if a frequency has a duration of time, I can hear the difference between 2 non-instantaneous tones, so I relistened to Chris Martenson insisting that the tones of 5 shots were of different (non-instantaneous) frequencies than the (non-instantaneous) tones of 18:11:33’s 3 shots, and I agree with Chris.
I didn’t know how Chris found that the middle shot of 5 didn’t ‘line up’. I never saved the AGR5 Westside video, but may try to find it, to see if its audio fails to ‘line up’ with a podium mic audio, for me.
And, a ‘boom calculation’ is new to me, if that calculation obviates the need for a supersonic ‘crack’ timing.
I wrote a ‘crack thump’ calculator into a webpage, July 2024.
My simple formula may work, but calculus may be needed to give a better value of (decreasing) bullet speed.
You can see I made a crude attempt to re-estimate an average speed with:

"
sd=ct*ct*v1;
v2=v1-sd;
av=((v2/1)+(v1/1))/2;
"

function C(tf){
v1=tf.vb.value;
ct=tf.ct.value;
vs=tf.vs.value;
vs=(vs<1090)?1125:vs;
ct=ct/100;
var d=ct/((1/vs)-(1/v1));
sd=ct*ct*v1;
v2=v1-sd;
av=((v2/1)+(v1/1))/2;
nt=d/av;
var d=nt/((1/vs)-(1/v1));
alert(d);
}

What calculus would be needed in my simple code to give a better average speed for a decelerating bullet?
Also, can the initial bullet speed ever be guaranteed to be perfectly known?
https://superfly.co.nz/ct.htm

[roger-knight]

@roger-knight

We can clearly see they pulled up the banner and tied a black string to cover it.

Nice catch.

My assumption that the string was added by police enforcement has been proven false by your picture. I therefore apologize and retract that assumption.

However, the main point of this discussion remains: the banner was pulled and the string likely tightened, because you can clearly see that the impact was covered up—in other words, literally a “cover-up.”

We also see a person taking a picture of that critical spot, which definitely suggests a “there there.” If by chance the person who took that picture is reading this post, we would be very interested in obtaining it.

Do you know the source of this video? I would really like to see it.

[phiphi-the-frenchie]

@roger-knight

My assumption that the string was added by police enforcement has been proven false by your picture. I therefore apologize and retract that assumption.

As usual, it was not presented as a hypothesis, but you stated it loud and clear as if it were a certainty!

@roger-knight

However, the main point of this discussion remains: the banner was pulled and the string likely tightened, because you can clearly see that the impact was covered up—in other words, literally a “cover-up.”

Stop your delusions, no one has tightened that tie or moved that banner, except maybe TOB who rubbed himself against it!

@roger-knight

We also see a person taking a picture of that critical spot, which definitely suggests a “there there.” If by chance the person who took that picture is reading this post, we would be very interested in obtaining it.

You’re completely obsessed; the guy isn’t photographing your hypothetical impact mark, but the scene unfolding a little further away!

@roger-knight

Do you know the source of this video? I would really like to see it.

Look at message 6469 in Part 1 of " So it’s back to First Principles "

[daniel59]

@greg_n

According to Grok, the muzzle blast and the expanding sound wave of the “frozen” Mach cone both reach the microphones of Source 3 and 4 simultaneously after 227 milliseconds, assuming Crooks fired. (I used the following coordinates for the rifle muzzle and microphone: (75/20/2) (0/0/5))

Could you reliably recognize a “crack” if it were not the sonic boom itself and it arrived at the same time as the muzzle blast?

@kincses-zsolt

@daniel59

The closer to the impact/bullet, the sharper the angle.

I think it is the opposite. Since the bullet loses energy along its path and decelerates.

You’re right in observing that the Mach cone’s angle can change over time as the bullet slows down.

I wasn’t referring to the angle of the cone, but rather the dispersion angle of the sound waves that continue to spread out after the Mach cone “freezes.”

I suspect that the dispersion angle near the tip of the Mach cone should be smaller than near the base of the Mach cone.

[daniel59]

@daniel59

Could it have been the echo of the sonic boom from a bullet fired from Building 9?

That’s not possible.

I wasn’t paying close enough attention and overlooked the fact that the 170ms echoes occurred with shots 4 to 8. That doesn’t fit with the assumption that only the first 3 bullets were fired from building 9.

[greg_n]

@daniel59

@greg_n

According to Grok, the muzzle blast and the expanding sound wave of the “frozen” Mach cone both reach the microphones of Source 3 and 4 simultaneously after 227 milliseconds, assuming Crooks fired. (I used the following coordinates for the rifle muzzle and microphone: (75/20/2) (0/0/5))

Could you reliably recognize a “crack” if it were not the sonic boom itself and it arrived at the same time as the muzzle blast?

Correct. When the recorder is very close to being perpendicular to the muzzle blast and direction of fire like Sources 3&4 were, the crack and thump (boom) arrive almost simultaneously.

I’m not sure what issue you are trying to point out to me, but if you are wondering about what I was saying a couple days ago in my echo analysis, that particular 79ms time difference was due to the blast potentially propagating through steel+air and actually arriving sooner at the recorders than the path that was solely through air.

[flamecensor]

A different video shows a lead cloud forming on top of the bleacher rail, and “we can clearly see” that the bullet landed from above…not from the side, or from underneath the rail top:

[roger-knight]

@phiphi-the-frenchie

no one has tightened that tie or moved that banner,

Sorry for contradicting, but please look at the steel triangle by following the yellow arrow.

and now follow the yellow arrow again:

[roger-knight]

@flamecensor

that the bullet landed from above…not from the side

As I have already informed you, the video you are presenting is a modified version of the original. Here is the original:

https://x.com/YWNReporter/status/1814294874860167397

Please provide your source. You will see that it is the same video, only edited.

[sonjax6]

A few people are starting to revisit Chris M’s old question about the lack of a splatter zone behind “Crooks” in light of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.

One old video that had escaped notice last year was this one:

30-06 vs ballistics gel head

It’s similar to the Brandon Herrerra one, but uses a 30.06 bullet. Like the Brandon Herrerra video, it shows the near total destruction of the ballistic head.

I recently watched a video from Banana Ballistics that compares 30.06, .308 and .300 winmag damage. While the .300 winmag “wins” on steel blocks, it’s a tie in all the other comparisons.

308 vs 30-06 vs 300 Win Mag: Did Not Expect This

From Clay Higgins’ addendum to the House final report:
“The third weapon, which fired the tenth and final shot on July 13, the shot that killed Crooks, was a Secret Service rifle which fired either a 210 Sierra HPBT or 300 WIN MAG 210 grain Berger very low drag (VLD) boat tail (BT) projectile loaded by Black Hills on special contract for the Secret Service.”

HPBT stands for Hollow Point Boat Tail.

[kincses-zsolt]

@flamecensor

Also, can the initial bullet speed ever be guaranteed to be perfectly known?

Of course, not. But I have no statistical data.
I will look for my calculations, one year ago I derived it. But it can be solved only by iterations.

Greg has a formula, but I cannot find it quickly.

@flamecensor

I can hear the difference between 2 non-instantaneous tones

no problemo
it works for comparison when arbitrary method is standardized
(otherwise it is like you tried to compare different perspectives of the same thing, roughly saying)

@greg_n

sound to refract around objects

Actually I encountered a problem by the given formula. It is a kind of coordinate-singularity. AI was unable to tell the solution. (It makes artifacts with fine grids.)

(Just for fun, I also asked AI to solve a confusing example, found in a novell. Five tons of wood were burned in seven stoves over four days. How many days will it take to burn seven tons of wood in five stoves?)

[sonjax6]

What are we to make of this?

https://x.com/BlueATLGeorgia/status/1968380634415439987

Is there a prosecution going on related to the Butler, PA assassination attempt that we don’t know about, or is Kash Patel an idiot?

Make it make sense.

[sonjax6]

https://x.com/JD_Cashless/status/1968422035635204547

[roger-knight]

@greg_n

If you listen to the Source 4 video, there is a very obvious difference in the sound made by shots 4-8 vs. shots 1-3. It’s so obvious to the human ear that no detailed echo analysis is needed to hear the difference.

I would like to point out that your first comment (see quote) seemed to me the most honest, as you attributed the obvious echo and audio differences to the rotation of the camera. However, when I noted that the same echo and acoustic differences can be heard in the stationary TMZ/Ross video, your reasoning became less convincing. Of course, we could continue analyzing the TMZ/Ross video to debate whether the echoes are present or not, but this would likely be wasted time since our opinions remain strongly opposed.

What I must acknowledge, however, is that due to the loud screaming in the TMZ video, the gain control is triggered and the input gain is drastically reduced. This prevents us from analyzing the sound properly and leaves enough room for misinterpretation.

In any case, the echoes tell the story. In that video, there are very strong echoes accompanying shots 4–8, which are absent from shots 1–3. Since Crooks could not have drastically changed his position in just two seconds, and the walls themselves are not moving, it is still very clear to me that shots 1–3 and shots 4–8 originated from two different positions.

Even more convincing is Stewart’s audio track of shots 1–9. In this recording, the opposite is true: shots 1–3 feature very loud and distinctive echoes, most likely bouncing off the barn walls behind Stewart, whereas shots 4–8 have virtually no noticeable echoes. Shot 9 once again produces echoes.

The explanation seems straightforward: shots 1–3 likely came from a much lower position, specifically from AGR Building 6. As you know, the only visible muzzle flash cought on video comes from Vent 1 on AGR Building 6.

Crooks’ shots 4–8, however, came from much higher up on the roof, missing the barn wall and therefore producing no strong echoes.

Shot 9, as we know, came from behind Stewart, and its echo likely reflected off the wall of AGR Building 6 itself.

I encourage you to listen to Stewart’s video slowed to 0.25× speed with headphones:

https://jumpshare.com/share/qKs6adFSptWr3j2x9cLr

You can clearly hear shots 1–3 coming from the left, while their strong echoes arrive from the right. In contrast, shots 4–8 have no noticeable echoes at all, and shot 9 is heard from the right with its echo coming from the left. It all adds up.

The fact that from the west side of the building you hear echoes from shots 4–8, while in Stewart’s video the echoes are linked to shots 1–3, makes it evident to me that there were two distinct firing locations for these eight shots.

[kincses-zsolt]

@sonjax6

From Clay Higgins’ addendum to the House final report:

Allegedly the individual on the roof turned toward west. In this case the 10th shot would have made a wound entry on POSTERIOR left neck. Possibly from his 8 o’clock. Which is not the case. I assume the 10th shot did not hit him.

[sonjax6]

@kincses-zsolt

Allegedly the individual on the roof turned toward west. In this case the 10th shot would have made a wound entry on POSTERIOR left neck. Possibly from his 8 o’clock. Which is not the case. I assume the 10th shot did not hit him.

I’ve been sitting on a substack regarding the wounds to Crooks, the lack of a splatter zone/ lack of expected damage to his head / lack of expected blood, and also his final position.

I haven’t been able to come up with ANY coherent theory, so I haven’t done anything with it.

The Malis / Grimley video shows him sitting up 3 seconds before being shot, which is not consistent at all with the counter snipers’ or Zaliponi’s testimony.

The autopsy says they didn’t determine whether the one fragment they dug out of Crooks before they cremated him was from Zaliponi’s or King’s rifle, and of course they didn’t dig out all the fragments, and they haven’t given us good photos or x-rays.

Congress got a little more information than us, but it looks like they got far from a full story.