So It's Back To First Principles

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
1042

I understand that you would not do that. But Trump?

A relative of mine was an army physician when the Germans beleagured Leningrad. A peculiarity of the German “Wehrmacht” was that physicians were placed together with the regular troops at the sharp end. He wasn’t exactly a very couragous person years later, but when I asked him if he also saved wounded Sowjet soldiers, his answer was “if we could do it”.

RSBN has a zoomed-in sequence of the scene when Trump left the stage here and here, with the latter in a quite good resolution. When you watch the sequence around 01:44, you can see a white reflection, which appears about three times in slightly different form. Since isolated cartilage appears whitish, and, to my knowledge, does not get wetted from blood, the images appear to be consistent with exposed chondral material.

RSBN-Alternate-Angle-00:01:44
RSBN-Alternate-Angle-00:01:441876×1084 437 KB

4 Likes
1043

But those first 3 rounds are not suppressed. We have good audio of both the crack and the boom (report) at microphones in the line of fire, and of the boom (report) itself, from microphones positioned elsewhere.

However, despite this seeming to me to be an incorrect detail in your otherwise, at first reading, quite interesting possible scenario, I am left wondering why you even assert that detail, as it seems to have no serious impact on your larger considerations. Why state something that doesn’t matter, much less why state such if it seems manifestly incorrect?

Clearly, I must have missed some, likely interesting, turn in your considerations.

===

P.S. – Perhaps I am showing my lack of expertise with guns. Perhaps by “suppressed” you mean in particular “muzzle flash” suppressed, while still allowing for a substantial “report” sound from the rifle.

1044

Agreed. My various conjectured hypotheses have all assumed that by the time Trump stood back up, something, somehow, had actually injured that ear, actually tearing flesh and actually causing Trump to bleed noticeably.

Trump and those working this with him had to know that that wounded ear shot would be an image “seen 'round the world.” Hence, if at all possible, it had to be real, very real, right then.

1045

Is that Crooks Hyundai Sonata in the street parked across from AGR???

13:48 in video.

1046

I think someone said it’s an Elantra.

1047

No, that’s an Elantra.

1048

yes, the mentioning of the use of a suppressed rifle is an important detail…

these are the possibilities:

  • the rifle can be equipped with a suppressor or not
  • the bullets used can be supersonic or subsonic

this gives 4 combinations:

  • most typically, someone uses a non-suppressed rifle with supersonic ammunition.
  1. here you can see and hear the explosion at the muzzle;
  2. the sonic boom when the bullet flies by;
  3. the impact of the bullet
  • if the rifle is suppressed and uses subsonic ammunition,
  1. the sound and flash of the explosion is suppressed. this sound is not silenced, but suppressed (which is why it is a suppressor and not a silencer). Gary Melton from Paramount Tactics showed decibel readings around 77-80 db for a suppressed round measured next to the muzzle; the flash of the explosion is reduced to a fast dissolving cloud of smoke. if you watch a video where a suppressed rifle is fired you will see that cloud for 1-3 frames if you watch that video frame by frame. a normal person does not notice this, you only see it if you know what you are looking for and you are paying attention
  2. a subsonic bullet does not cause the sonic boom…
  3. the impact of the bullet can always be heard. if the target is hit and can still scream, the impact can be noticed easier than when the target is taken out immediately :slight_smile:
  • if the rifle is suppressed and fires supersonic ammunition, you will
  1. not see or hear the rifle firing the bullet
  2. you will still hear the bullet flying by
  3. you will still hear the target taking the impact
  • if the rifle is not suppressed but fires subsonic ammunition, you can
  1. see and hear the muzzle flash and the explosion
  2. you will not hear the sonic boom
  3. you will still hear the target taking the impact

so, what I think happened is that the shooter on the higher roof behind the lower roof fired the first 3 round with a suppressed sniper or hunting rifle using supersonic ammunition:

  1. the explosion of firing the gun is not visible or audibly noticeable at all from that distance
  2. the sonic boom can be heard when the bullet flies by
  3. the impact can be heard if the bullet hits a target

the 4 snipers behind Trump were using suppressed rifles, and I believe they were using subsonic ammunition. this makes their shots extremely hard to detect, as only the recoil of them firing the gun would give it away, and that is what we see in the videos.
I believe the snipers behind the left bleachers (closest to the AGR site) returned fire almost immediately when the first shots were fired, but as their view was obstructed by the tree in between, their bullets must have pruned the trees, or must have flown over the AGR buildings and have ended up somewhere in this orange cone:

image
image1294×526 84.4 KB

1049

suppressed only refers to whether you can hear and see the explosion at the barrel…

a subsonic bullet will not be associated with the sonic boom, and a supersonic bullet will…

you are mixing suppressed with subsonic or supersonic ammunition.
in the post I submitted a couple of minutes ago, I explain the 4 different possibilities:

  1. normal case: rifle is not suppressed, using supersonic ammunition: you see/hear the muzzle flash/explosion, you hear the sonic boom and you see/hear the impact of the bullet
  2. suppressed rifle using subsonic ammunition: you cannot easily see/hear the muzzle flash/explosion, and you do not hear the sonic boom, but you can still see/hear the impact of the bullet
  3. non-suppressed rifle using subsonic ammunition: you see/hear the muzzle flash/explosion, but you do not hear the sonic boom, and you still can see/hear the impact of the bullet
  4. suppressed rifle using supersonic ammunition: you cannot easily see/hear the muzzle flash/explosion, but you do hear the sonic boom and you can see/hear the impact of the bullet
1 Like
1050

But, but … I thought that all the (rather too many) audio analyses I watched so far, as recorded at various locations, a half dozen or more, all of them, for all initial eight (3+5) shots, recorded the audible sound, the report, the explosive sound of gun powder being converted to hot gas really fast, which sound travels away from the fired gun at the speed of sound. Often the supersonic crack was not recorded, due to the microphone not being close enough to the path of a supersonic round, but the speed-of-sound gun powder exploding sound was there for the microphone to record, if it could.

Unless I’m suffering from (not so early) reading dementia, you’re stating that this explosion sound, which seems to be commonly called the “report”, “is not … audibly noticeable at all from that distance”. By “that distance” do you mean “over 140 or 150 yards”, the distance from the patsy (Crooks?) to Trump’s main microphone? Nah - I doubt you mean that, since practically every distance involved here is less than that.

In short … my confusion remains as it was.

1051

exactly!

so, the scenario from my perspective goes as follows:

  • the real shooter who took the first 3 shots at Trump used supersonic ammunition while shooting a suppressed rifle from the highest AGR building at the parking. the explosion and muzzle flash cannot be seen by anyone in the audience due to the suppressor, but the supersonic bullets still cause the audio registrations you are analyzing
  • the trajectory of the bullets fired by the man on the higher roof is very well aligned with the trajectory of the bullets should they have come from the man on the lower roof
  • after the first 3 shots were fired by the shooter on the higher roof, there are two possibillities:
  1. either the man on the lower roof used his rifle and shot 5 rounds in almost full-auto mode (either using the jitter finger technique or with a hardware upgrade such that the 2013 DPMS A-15 could shoot in full-auto). the reason why only 5 rounds were fired in this mode is because the full-auto mode would have stopped after 5 round (which is unlikely) or because he had put only 5 cartridges in the magazine
  2. the second option is that the man on the higher roof fired the 5 shots in rapid fire.

considering everything I know by now, the first option seems likely as a working hypothesis, but there is still something that does not feel right: the number of casualties does not match the scenario in which the man on the lower roof shot 5 rounds in quick succession…

so, here we come with an alternative scenario that takes these observations into account:

  1. the first 3 shots were fired with a suppressed sniper or hunting rifle with supersonic ammunition as explained above
  2. the man on the lower roof shot 5 rounds in full auto or with the jitter finger technique as explained above, but he fired them pointing in a random direction
  3. the shooter from the high roof shot AFTER the first 3 shots he took with SUPERSONIC ammunition the rest of his shots with SUBSONIC ammunition…

this would explain why there are so many casualties with a reasonably close grouping:

  1. bullet 1 grazed Trump’s ear, grazed or penetrated the railing of the right bleachers and ended up in the hydraulics of the JCB hydraulic lift that held up the speakers. the evidence video footage shows that the hydraulic lift was damaged after the 1st bullet was fired
  2. bullet 1 or 2 injured David Dutch
  3. bullets 2-3 or one of the subsequent bullets injured James Copenhaver
  4. Chris assumes that bullet 6 killed Corey Comperatore
  5. there was also a nephew of a congressman that got grazed in the neck by a bullet, but I do not know which bullet that was and where that man was positioned in the bleachers, but that man got medical attention

so we can reasonably assume that there were 5 human victims:

  1. Trump
  2. David Dutch
  3. James Copenhaver
  4. the nephew
  5. Corey Comperatore

when looking at the two roofs, that is a reasonably close grouping :slight_smile:
and this grouping is much more consistent with only 1 shooter (namely the one on the higher roof), than 2 different shooters of which one is a youngster that has been running over the roofs and who is being shouted at by the public and who has just been interrupted doing his business by a peeping police man over the roof edge…

hope this explanation helps clarifying your queries?

1052

the distance between who I call the “real shooter” and Trump’s microphone (let’s make abstraction of Trump, Trump’s ear and his microphone and consider they are all at the same distance (the difference would be negligible given the total range we are talking about)) is about 236.34m = 258.5 yards= 775.41 ft:

image
image1284×474 82.1 KB

when we consider the man on the roof (referred to as crooks on the image, even though I do not like mentioning this name, as we do not really know who died on that roof), we get a distance of 144.9m = 158.5 yards = 475.36 ft:

image
image1218×375 61.6 KB

1053

Other than my hypothesis (shared by almost no one else) that the first shot deliberately and actually did not nick Trump’s ear, I agree with your casualty count for the first three shots. I also agree that those first three shots were likely shot by someone more skilled with a rifle than myself, and more in the focused mind state of a trained sniper than the patsy (Crooks?) likely was at the time.

That the next rapidly fired five shots hit Dutch, Copenhaver, the nephew and Comperatore does not surprise me that much. Five rapidly fired shots into two bleachers, both packed with people, both in the almost identically same line of fire, one behind the other, will have a good chance of hitting several people. Any one of those bullets could nick a couple of people before coming to a rest.

1054

David Dutch was most likely hit by

  • shrapnel of the 1st bullet or ricochet off the railing of the right bleachers caused by the 1st bullet
  • or by the 2nd bullet

James Copenhaver was likely hit by bullet 2 or 3.

The nephew and Comperatore were likely hit by one of the 5 bullets that were fired in the burst of 5…

shooting such a relatively small grouping from the lower roof with an old gun without a bipod and in the uncomfortable position of lying on a roof and by a youngster who has been chased up seems unlikely to me…

1055

Oops - I should have said 240 or 250 yards, not 140 or 150 yards. My mistake, though not significant to our present discussion.

How small a grouping are we talking - how wide an angle do those two overlapping (from AGR Bldg #6 angle) bleachers span?

Unless we position each of the casualties in a tighter group, in almost the same line of fire, closer than a “spray and pray” firing could hold, I don’t see this casualty count for shots 4-8 to be unlikely, even for a kid scared out of his mind.

1056

under the assumption that the man on the lower roof fired the shots, the distance of the area where the victims were located is approximately shown with the red triangle.

the height of this triangle is 178 meters = 195 yards = 585 feet
its small base is 16 meters = 17.9 yards = 55 feet

the base can be smaller (2/3rd of the dimensions mentioned) as I guestimated the whole surface of the right bleachers:

image
image1183×605 91 KB

if we assume that the shots were fired from the higher roof, we get these dimensions for the red triangle:
the height of this triangle is 274 meters = 300 yards = 900 feet
its small base is 16 meters = 17.9 yards = 55 feet

if you let me know which formula you want to apply to calculate these angles, I can add it to my tool with which I generate these kml files…

image
image1261×539 88.6 KB

1057

I’ll be ignoring you most of the time, but I reserve the right to send back the same tired answers to your same weak points. Trump was rattled and had been told “shooter is down”. It was the security detail’s job to ignore what Trump wanted to do and hustle him off the stage. They were brave but not as well trained as they should have been.

On 9/11/2001, Secret Service people physically picked up VP Dick Cheney and hauled him down to the bunker underneath the White House. So there’s your precedent of a guy that didn’t have common sense and a security detail that was doing its job.

There’s a lot of evidence. There just is no amount of evidence that would satisfy you. He could have had a 4K video taken of his ear three times every single day from 4 inches away and it wouldn’t satisfy you or your type. Why should he have to do that to try to satisfy Blue-Anons?

2 Likes
1058

How to Calculate the Angles of an Isosceles Triangle

1059

I agree that there is not enough physical evidence available to prove whether or not an actual bullet nicked Trump’s ear.

One has to look at larger issues to have an inclination which seems more likely.

Given some stock option trading before the 13th of July and given some likely inside intelligence that Trump’s team routinely gathers on the “other” team, it’s quite plausible that Trump’s team knew of the coming assassination attempt ahead of time.

Given Trump’s long standing association with the Kennedy sons and Nixon, he knew, deep in his bones, that being a President and going after certain Deep State interests was a deadly game.

Given that he plans on being President for another four years and that he’s really pissing off the Deep State with his resilience so far to nearly a decade of resilience to increasingly vicious attacks, he had to know that a killer head shot from a sniper was coming up soon on his “chart”, and that he absolutely had to take out the CIA/FBI/DOJ/Secret Service complex that has orchestrated such plots in the past. Either they go, or he goes. DC is not big enough for both of them.

Given Trump’s long standing enjoyment of WWE wrestling and substantial career as a TV series movie star, and given his “grand standing” temperament, he’s perfectly character cast to take on an assassination attempt head on, and dramatically turn it in his favor.

Given Trump’s long history of helping setup sting operations to go after Mafia criminals (helping Giuliani become “America’s Mayor”), that’s the sort of game that Trump plays, and plays to win.

Given how trivially easy, just involving a handful of people doing what they might well be inclined to do anyway, to turn that assassination attempt in his favor (basically just “persuade” the real assassin to miss, and his closest security agent to cut his ear under that dog pile), and given Trump has had decades to let such possibilities age like fine wine in his thoughts … it’s hard for me to imagine this going down any other way. Certainly this seems more likely to me that once in a million miracles or luck.

The BIG picture points clearly. The publicly available and reliable crime scene evidence will almost certainly never decide this question.

1060

[quote=“SonjaX6, post:1057, topic:41297, username:sonjax6”]
… the security detail’s … were brave but not as well trained as they should have been.[/quote]
Absolutely. A core part of the way that the Deep State has long run such operations is to weaken the protectee’s security detail, both to make him easier to attack, and to leave open the “Let It Happen” incompetence excuse, for those conspiracy theory nut cases (such as myself) who are not satisfied with the “Lone Nut” shooter narrative.

The lead front line pre-crime and execution squad in such cases, the Secret Service, and the lead front line post-crime cleanup squad in such cases, the FBI, have been corrupted to their core since at least Nov 1963.

Throw in an ever changing mixed bag of true, false, obfuscated, self-contradictory, altered and just plain fraudulent “evidence”, and you can keep us conspiracy theorists occupied for a lifetime on such details. I’ve been open to such JFK details for over 60 years so far.

1061

While I’m in for a good laugh about well placed sarcasm, your deviation attempt does not really bring forward a sensible discussion.