Note to self, make sure the charging handle is locked in full forward position… or you will be dealing with some leaking 
Not that I’ve ever done that… and I have, LOL
1 Like
First, I appreciate your diligence and concern for truth seeking, and correct spelling of “rifle.”
I have studied the still framed images you provide, and I do NOT see what you are alleging as an altercation.
I do believe the images/videos could have been altered so my trust level is low, however I have no direct evidence to show they ARE or have been altered so I cannot say they are altered. I do default to them being authentic having been presumably uploaded soon after the event (I recall seeing them same-day?), and understand they are of extremely low resolution quality from a distance that pushes the capabilities of most cellular phone video cameras. And uploads lose quality too…
I do hope we have better videos from other spectators forthcoming…
1 Like
We DO have a clear video of Crooks firing, even if you choose to ignore the video itself and me having pointed out to the TMZ video with recoil+casing since Aug 1st (A MONTH AGO). Then after the casing discussion got enough traction from under the pile of posts you quickly throw at us when the casing is mentioned, you come up with not only one weird proposal, but two or more! First, a very sketchy video from that even sketchier Scooper website that you somehow magically found and that we have to watch it quickly because TMZ might take it down… come on… and then you mention that it was the TMZ video that was altered to add recoil after they saw your posts (and keep in mind when I’m seeing their video with recoil and ejectiong since Aug 1st, mind you). You also completely ignored the hypothesis that that sketchy Scooper video could either be an encoding from an original 60 fps source or altered precisely to give the impression that there was no recoil or ejection.
Roger, is seems that it’s more important for you to maintain a 2nd shooter going than to find the truth…
And now you come up with the TMZ video not being recorded by that Michael guy, but redcap, and you do a WILD stereo channel inversion to come up with that and other stuff ? And then you have the nerve to challenge us to debunk such lunacy? What is this?!
My friend, look, maybe you are a bit too close to it… maybe you have an agenda to keep the 2nd shooter going, but I’ll tell you this… when you draw out smart people to a forum like this, these people don’t fall for crazy wild claims without good evidence , and smart people like we have here DO catch on to patterns of disruption and senseless razzle-dazzle…
Oh, and since I’m at it, there’s one more thing… I’m about to challenge your height for the bleachers, and that @schroederized drawing.
1 Like
Let’s see if this can help us with trajectories, shall we?
I count 10 rows for people on those bleachers (see first photo). And Kay Park’s website has 2 options with 45 feet long bleachers, which is our case. 9 rows and 10 rows, and those differ in height (see second picture).
From this post here, you’ve been estimating 11.2 feet + 1 inch for the bleachers height above it’s ground level (which is, according to google earth, 2,1326 feet below the podium’s ground level).
KAY PARK’s WEBSITE has the technical specs. 10 row bleachers have a 12’2" height (12 feet+0.1667 feet=12.1667 feet). With this height AND paramount tactical’s elevations (2 of which match yours btw), we have a perfect trajectory for Crooks, and not a perfect trajectory for the vent.
Your vent-bullet is going almost 1 full foot above the rail, provided of course it magically managed to pass those downward angled flaps on the vent that never opened.
Here’s the excel spreadsheet
BTW, shouls anyone be interested in reading patents related to Speedy Bleacher, run a search on the US Patent’s Office for BORGLUM, KEITH. It’s the guy whose patent # are on Kay Park’s demo video. Patents don’t have the dimensions, btw.
1 Like
IIRC, someone here came up with the actual make/model number of the bleachers used for the rally. It was in some pictures they found somewhere.
1 Like
You mean this? Maybe Roger could give them a call and ask if they had their website dimensions recently altered by hackers since he posted his drawing. Why wouldn’t he, I mean, it’s essentially what he has accused TMZ of doing with video.
Post 204 on Site Reconstruction
1 Like
The more I am working on this project, the more I am convinced that there is a 2nd shooter, this is correct. But I am not here to insist on any fixed idea. So, instead of simply criticizing me in general about my hypothesis of Redcap being the guy who makes the video, wouldn’t it be more constructive to challenge anything I mentioned in my analysis by providing some proof and debunking my theory? I have been very transparent with my presentation and am willing to debate it with actual proof. The fact that Ross fumbles his camera in Jon’s video, for example, clearly proves that he can’t be the guy who is making the TMZ video. Please bring some convincing counter arguments and I am open for debate, but simply calling it lunacy will not bring us to common grounds.
3 Likes
Sorry, but no. You will not drag me down that fabricated bottomless hole to avoid addressing the points I’ve already submitted. I will keep pointing out what I have evidence for, instead of losing my time on that apparently intentional wild goose chase of yours.
1 Like
It’s not a bottomless hole… Do you believe Ross or maybe we should call him by his real name, Mike DiFrischia made the TMZ video despite the fact that he fumbles his camera 12 seconds after the first shot is fired? I have provided proof that it can’t be him. If it is not him, the only person left is Redcap who is making the TMZ movie since he is constantly focused on the roof with his camera.
Are you ignorant to facts that don’t fit your narrative?
Hi daniloraf,
Thank you for challenging the “Peak Prosperity Citizen Investigation” joint “back tracing of the bullet” project.
I have taken so much time to implement our reference points in the below drawing. Each data has it’s own ref. It makes it much easier to discuss, if you are trying to challenge something in this drawing, simply by indicating the ref number. Keep in mind, many people have challenged and brought convincing evidence to this drawing, and I integrated it into the next version. This is how we have become so advanced on this topic compared to others. So, if you bring any suggestion that one data point needs to be updated, I would be glad to integrate it into version 6, under the condition it is convincing evidence.
So, looking at your post, you are challenging ref. 274 which is the height of the bleachers? Please see below the ref. 274 drawing. At this moment I have noticed some small mistakes in version 5, one being a dimension in ref. 274. It changes from 11.25 to 11.125, ref 870 becomes 2” I also noticed that I was using the same ref. 274 for 2 data points, of which I changed the lower one to ref. 275. So, these are simple typing mistakes and do not have any influence on the numbers, since ref. 275 remains unchanged at 10.9583. I will upgrade this data in version 6.
Here are also the absolute hights of which I will also integrate in version 6:
This data has been taken from the following post:
The source of the drawing was provided by @schroederized in this post:
According to schroederized he could provide us with a DXF drawing.
However if you doubt what schroederized has provided you can download this drawing directly from the Internet:
In addition you are referring to Gary’s video of which I already commented. We agree 100% with the drone floor levels and 90% with his analysis, he simply gets one data point wrong according to this forum, namely the height of Trumps ear. Please have a look:
Have I provided enough documents to justify our drawing. Please continue to challenge…
Together we are strong…
1 Like
I’m in the same boat with, @daniloraf. We might be rowing in circles but the recoil and casing on the TMZ video have always been there (even if the video was later enhanced), and I’ve moved the 2nd shooter hypothesis into the red.
When and based on what evidence exactly did you notice recoil and casings?
When and based on what evidence exactly did you notice recoil and casings?
On the first TMZ video that was released. It’s hard to see but if you watch it on a full-size monitor and slow it down you can see the casing at the 5-6 second mark.
This is where I’m at today after reviewing the evidence (daily) and avoiding the rabbit holes.
- Crooks had help with the planning and getting on the building.
- It’s Crooks on the roof.
- Crooks definitely fired at Trump.
- Although incomprehensible… Evidence points to Crooks most likely being the lone gunman.
- Crooks seen in several places around the venue results from the entire area being so small.
- There is no Crooks clothing conspiracy. Review the videos and count how many people are wearing black shorts or blue jeans. (people see what they want to see)
- I don’t believe a professional would’ve missed Trump on the first shot regardless of the elements and if they did, they would’ve connected with the 2nd shot.
I think Crooks had the receiver of the rifle right on (or above) the roof peak which caused the first 3 casings to fall on the south side of the peak, and the first three shots to sound (echo) differently. He then raised up/back onto his knees/butt which moved him away from the roof peak which caused the next 5 casings to fall on the south side of the peak and the shots (echoes) to sound differently.
Even with the limited people on this site working on the echos and shot angles, they can’t agree on where to put a 2nd shooter. It’s most likely because there wasn’t one. At least that’s where the evidence leads. Some shady 
happening definitely, but no 2nd shooter.
I’m not giving up. I have an email into U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly and I’m trying to contact the nurse who assisted the woman who was shot that we’ve never heard of. I’ll also be returning to Butler on the 9th with an investigator. I want to tie up every possible lead, but right now I’m at the single shooter theory.
1 Like
I think I’ve pretty accurate timing for Crooks seen in a video walking in front of AGR6. I think there might be different versions of that video. I remember seeing one where his last 2 steps were to his right. Mine ends before that. Timing for the video is 5:06:55-5:07:23. Here’s link to the video I used for calculation, I’d very much appreciate if somebody who knows longer version of same video shared a link. I mean where Crooks is seen for longer time not anything else, I cut out everything else from this video:
I use 5:06 pm for the start of the video, which is all the level of detail I need for the type of analysis I perform. Here is a post from @rawroku that describes his assessment of the times related to that video. I’m not sure which version he used.
1 Like
The point is where you download that video and when. If you downloaded it early, then please calculate a checksum (e.g. sha-256sum) and post it here.
I have no idea what that means.
A checksum is a small-sized block of data derived from another block of digital data for the purpose of detecting errors that may have been introduced during its transmission or storage. By themselves, checksums are often used to verify data integrity but are not relied upon to verify data authenticity.
1 Like
maybe check this one
Someone should tell the most important thing: how to calculate?
1 Like