No. My arguments are quite solid, I think, and the Vent Flash theory is straightforward to disprove.
What we see here is not a flash. It is a video artifact due to compression. Remember that you are zoomed in quite a bit, and the camera is moving and rotating, making things challenging for the video compression algorithm. Is the light gray rectangle in the center of this image what you are calling the flash?
If so, please step through the video one frame at a time. The dark area adjacent to the flash, just a little above and to the right, is only present for two frames. Then it goes away, but the âflashâ is still there. It stays there for seven frames until it disappears. In total, the flash is visible for nine frames, which 267 ms. That is a very long time. Muzzle flashes are less than 5 ms, so youâre lucky to even see a muzzle flash with a normal 30 fps camera. What you are seeing here is not a muzzle flash, it is a very distorted representation of the vent, made inconsistent due to the limitations of the compression algorithm and the limited bitrate available to stream to the cameraâs internal storage.
If that isnât enough proof for you, take a look at this. Go frame by frame at the beginning of the video segment until you see the ladyâs knees start to bend. She flinches downward when the first shot breaks. Next, measure the time from that spot to where you see the vent flash. Youâll see that it is 1.034 seconds. However, shot 2 was about 855 ms after shot 1, and shot 3 was about 1530 ms after shot 1. So, the vent flash at 1034 ms is not in sync with any of the gunshots.
Edit: To see what actual muzzle flashes look like, download this video:
Pull it into a video editor so that you can step through it frame-by-frame. You will see that each muzzle flash occupies only one frame.
Well Greg, times have changed since last year. In the meantime, we now have ChatGPT to answer these kinds of questions, instead of us having to argue them out ourselves. I uploaded the 12 critical frames from that video and asked the following:
each frame is 0.033 s, is the white flash too long to be a muzzle flash from a 0.308 heavy load?
ChatGPT said:
Thought for 16s
Why it looks like a real muzzle flash, not an artifact
1. Local vs. global brightening
In your frames, the bright event is tightly confined to the vent area.
Camera artifacts like auto-exposure or gain changes usually affect the entire frame for multiple frames.
Since the sky, grass, and people remain stable, this suggests a genuine light source rather than a global adjustment.
2. Spatial structure
The bright point sits exactly within the outline of the vent, anchored to the sceneâs geometry.
Here, the effect is locked to one physical object.
3. Temporal profile
Real muzzle flashes usually appear in one very strong frame, sometimes fading slightly into the next.
Artifacts last longer â 3+ frames (100+ ms) â and fade gradually across the whole image.
In your case, the flash peaks in a single frame and drops off by the next, which matches the physics of a true flash.
4. Color balance
Muzzle flashes often appear as bright white or yellowish-hot spots.
Artifacts, by contrast, raise all color channels evenly, producing a flat grayish tint across the frame.
What you see is a sharp white/yellow core, consistent with combustion, not a sensor effect.
5. Scene consistency
The background, people, and shadows donât brighten along with the flash.
If it were auto-exposure or gain, the entire frame would shift.
Because the effect is isolated to one area, it points to an actual localized light event.
Conclusion
Taken together â the localization, the one-frame dominance with quick decay, the alignment with scene geometry, and the absence of global exposure changes â all make it much more consistent with a real muzzle flash (or another genuine light emission at that spot) than with a camera artifact.
You are seriously deluded, sir. If thatâs truly what you think after looking carefully at the âvent flashâ video frame-by-frame and then comparing it to what a real muzzle flash looks like, then itâs obvious that nothing Iâve said in the past or could say in the future will make a lick of difference to you. Thatâs unfortunate, but it shall be as you wish.
Ah ChatGPT, the new religion with its cohort of new disciples who drink in its holy words having lost all critical sense and all common sense when it is only a tool, a beautiful tool certainly, but which often tells you what you want to hear!
I can make the bullet slow down better with
for(i=33;i>1;iâ){R(i){}}
so trying to cheat, with everyone trying to out cheat and out lie everyone else.
But at least it makes the bullet seem to âslow downâ, and I changed to metric values:
Based on reports that Crooks had purchased a ladder, and photos that circulated after the shooting that showed a ladder against the AGR complex, a narrative emerged that Crooks used a ladder to climb onto the roof of the AGR complex. While Crooks did purchase a five-foot ladder at approximately 930 the morning of July 13, he abandoned that ladder in a wooded area adjacent to the parking lot of a permanently closed business in Bethel Park, approximately 50 miles away from the site of the rally. 129
129 PSP Response to Comm. on Homeland Sec., Penn. State Police, 1 (2024) (on file with the Task Force); Press Release, Investigative Updates on the Butler, Pennsylvania, Assassination Attempt, Fed. Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Depât of Justice (Jul. 29, 2024).
Of course, he is not allowed to harvest the victory. But Iâm 90% certain that he fired the mortal face shot, and SSCS hit only the stock. Only this version is aligned with shooting positions and angles.
Apparently there are mistakes, inaccuracies. The shooterâs position, Zaliponiâs position. (un)fortunatelly I reconstructed his shooting position from Pearsonâs bodycam footage.
I understand that you disagree, but resorting to calling me âdeludedâ doesnât address the evidence weâve discussed. By referring to it as a âvent flash,â you are in fact already acknowledging the presence of a flash â which directly supports my point. I have shown, step by step and with verification, that whatâs captured is most likely consistent with a real muzzle flash and definitively not an artifact. This is first-hand video evidence, which carries very high weight in any serious evaluation, even in a court case. Your latest response suggests that you no longer have convincing arguments to continue this debate.
I respect your perspective, but without stronger evidence from your side, itâs fair to conclude that the case stands as I have presented it.
I took quite a bit of time out of my day today to prove that the âvent flashâ in that video segment is an artifact of video compression and not an actual muzzle flash. Itâs clear that you are either unable to understand whatâs going on in this video or you are unwilling to understand. Either way, I wonât be spending any more time trying to help you. Go back and read my very clear explanations again if they went over our head the first time. You may now have the last word. And the one after that, etc.
If vi
is the initial velocity, summing every multiplicative inverse for every meter
sigma=0;
function R(){
sigma+=1/vi;
}
function C(tf){
vi=tf.vb.value;
ct=tf.ct.value;
vs=tf.vs.value;
vs=(vs<332)?343:vs;
ct=ct/100;
nt=ct;
d=ct/((1/vs)-(1/vi));
d=Math.round(d);
for(i=0;i<d;i++){
R();
}
Vaverage=d/sigma;
I think Vaverage just returns the initial guessed speed,
vi
Iâll make the velocities for each meter roll nicely down, as gravity overwhelms air resistance, as the main slowing force.
When there are videos that are difficult to reconcile, sometimes you have to ask âwhich of these is easier to fake?â
With that 1/12 pitch roof, if Crooks was sitting up (or propped up on one elbow) while only 4 or 5 feet north of the crest of the roof, he would be sitting on a part of the roof that was only 8 or 9 inches below the top of the roof. He would have been easily visible to both the Hercules 1 snipers and Zaliponi.
One possibility is that the Malis video had a live Crooks inserted, and then the âoohâ inserted.
Or the âoohâ could be real, but the shot could have been taken from the north, maybe from Murcko.
âŚreminds me to include a guess of âshooting angleâ, with the existing guess for âbullet speedâ.
The speed of a bullet fired straight upâŚor straight downâŚcould be affected differently by air resistance and the pull of gravity.
I think he could have ended in your pictured position if heâd been shot from South by King, or if heâd been shot from the long range, unknown angle shot claimed by Eric Prince and Steve Baker.
I hear âshot 9bâ, but never really cared about who shot Crooks.
I found my âhome movieâ, named âshot9b.mp4â:
To determine the exact phase of the moon on July 13, 2024:
The moon phase on that date is First Quarter, which occurs around July 12-13. During a First Quarter phase, the moon appears as half-lit, with the right half illuminated (in the Northern Hemisphere).
The First Quarter Moon typically rises around noon and sets around midnight, with its highest point in the sky around sunset. In this case, since the object is at a 2 oâclock position in the sky around 18:10 (near sunset), itâs actually more likely to be a Full Moon or something close to that phase.
Given that itâs bright and appears almost circular, it could be a Full Moon or near-Full phase, especially since the Full Moon is visible in the sky around this time of day. The moon would also be in a more easterly direction, rising and becoming more visible as the sun sets. The object might not be the moon exactly, but it certainly looks like it could be a bright object in the sky.
The dark shape you see in the bottom left could indeed be a bird passing through the shot, which is common when photographing large open skies.
First Quarter Phase: The First Quarter Moon occurs about 7 days after the new moon. At this time, the moon is about 90° ahead of the sun in the sky.
Around Sunset: Since the sun sets in the west, the First Quarter Moon will be roughly 90° to the east of the sun at sunset, which places it toward the south in the sky (in the Northern Hemisphere).
Why You Would Expect the First Quarter to Appear South:
The First Quarter Moon will be about halfway between the new moon and full moon, and it is positioned to the east of the sun, so as the sun sets, the First Quarter Moon will be in the southern part of the sky.
Conclusion
Given this, the First Quarter Moon should be in the southern sky around sunset, as you correctly deduced. If the object youâre seeing in the image doesnât match this (appearing more to the east or elsewhere), it might not be the First Quarter Moon. It could be a different phase, or it might be another object altogether.
Too late, done. Copilot refined it - I just raised the right questions.
