I provided the Google Earth drawing in my post showing the distance.
Here it is again:
https://earth.google.com/earth/d/1KMtd5W7xev6ofeJuq00lyajpegCg7f-0?usp=sharing
Thank you, @khunter. Yes, I would say your numbers are fairly accurate. As I’m sure you know, estimating these positions is not easy, and we see some variation from one person’s approach to another. Another investigator, @vt1 , also kindly provided these points, and I was curious how close your locations would be. Comparing your numbers with @vt1’s:
Your podium mic is 3.3 ft to the West
Your NTD location is 8.5 ft to the Northeast
Given all of the variables involved, I’d say that pretty good agreement.
1 Like
it is impossible to know whether these positions are accurate or not:
- the precise location of the podium is unknown
- the height and position of the microphone is unknown
- the brand and type of the microphone is unknown
- the coordinate system is unknown: google earth shows different coordinate values for different tiles/air photography
- coordinates from GPS differ from coordinates from google earth
- there are many other uncertainties
last week, I had a chat with a geodesist and asked him the coordinates his system reported for the location where I encountered him.
(I noticed they were indexing/updating their maps in a street where I drove around).
we compared
- his “official” value
- the car’s coordinates based on GPS
- the google earth values based on the phone’s location system
and all of these values were different beyond rounding errors…
also the elevation values were seriously off.
it turns out the geodesists
- use a landmark and all their distances, angles and elevations are relative to that landmark
- they cannot explain the elevation differences
it also turns out that they stopped referring to sea levels due to definition issues, which is why they migrated to using well identified and fully specified landmarks
so, as long as it is clear which coordinate system is used, coordinates can be compared within that system, but coordinates from a GPS reader cannot be compared to coordinates of google earth or a geodesist and vice versa…
also note that a vehicle uses a concept know as “snap to road” to adjust its reference point derived from the GPS signals it receives: a car is supposed to be driving along and near roads, so it keeps state and when the car shuts down, the GPS receiver stores its last known road location and uses that location as a starting point for further navigation.
as soon as the car starts driving around again, it starts analysing the GPS signals and triangulates its location.
meanwhile, it maps its movements to the digitized map and sees whether it still matches a road.
when the car turns left/right, it checks whether the system still uses the right offsets, and corrects whenever necessary by “snapping to the nearest road” parallel to its driving direction, and it keeps checking and correcting its readings to its digitized map…
the GPS system of a car that gets transported by train, boat or truck or similar take much longer to find their new first location than cars that drove to that location…
I use in my kmls the default maps of google earth pro, i.e., 1985…
Hello HowdoIKnow
From what I understand of your research up to this point, I thought that you favoured a second shooter on the tall AGR building behind Crooks. And I thought you were trying to back trace the bullet’s path - both as a straight line ideal and also a curved trajectory - to see if it corresponded to the high building in question.
Based upon what you have just said, are you now saying that you have abandoned all attempts to back trace the bullets, because you think that it is impossible to determine with any confidence the origin point of any shooter in terms of elevation and position? Essentially, that the margins of error are too great to achieve this?
2 Likes
Or the video stream of that dashcam was edited too.
2 Likes
hello KHunter,
no, the scenario I go for is still based on the high roof behind crooks, which is the highest building at the AGR parking:
from my point of view, the shooter from this location was a professional sniper who fired the first 3 rounds towards Trump.
originally, I assumed that this shooter would also have fired the subsequent 5 rapid-fire shots, but since the bodycam footage has been released that shows the SWAT officer firing the 9th bullet at crooks, I am no longer convinced that the high roof shooter fired the the subsequent 5 rounds too.
so, this is the situation how I see it now:
- crooks had to be at 18h11m33 in position on the roof of AGR building 6
- he had been running late for whatever reason, which explains why he is seen running/jogging/walking fast on the roofs in the James Copenhaver video
- a bit before that time, he assumed his position on the roof of AGR building 6, and
- at exactly 18h11m33s, the first shot was fired by the professional on the high roof behind crooks
- the first 3 shots were fired in the first 2 seconds that have been registered by various sources, and from my point of view, these were higher caliber sniper rifle bullets of about 165-180 grains
- the first bullet grazed Trump’s ear, scratched the right/southern bleachers and punctured the hydraulic hose of the JCB forklift that kept up the speakers
- the 2nd and 3rd bullet injured David Dutch and James Copenhaver
- then there was a pause of just under 1 second
- then the 5 rapid fire shots were fired. here we have two options:
- crooks fired those rounds
- the sniper on the high roof used a different rifle and fired these 5 rounds
- these 5 bullets injured several people and killed Corey Comperatore
- I do not know in which order these people were hit, but there were at least 6 victims:
- Trump’s ear got grazed
- David Dutch had entry/exit wounds and stood in the right/south bleachers
- James Copenhaver has unknown, but “life altering” injuries and stood halfway in the back of the right/south bleachers
- Corey Comperatore died from a head shot and stood in the left/north bleachers
- the nephew of a congressman had a neck injury and was seated in the middle or right bleachers
- a woman received medical care, but it is unknown where she was injured
- after the 5 shots were fired, there was a pause of just under 1 second
- after the 1st shot was fired, there was a SWAT officer who walked from the tents behind Trump to the green near the first fence towards the AGR site. the shot fired by this SWAT officer is indicated by the orangish line in the picture below
- after a pause of about 9 seconds
- the 10th shot was fired which finished crooks off
there are a couple of degrees of freedom in this scenario based on the many remarkable observations:
- I do not believe that the SWAT officer injured crooks with the 9th bullet. he may have irritated him, but given the fact that crooks was able to sit upright and turn his rifle towards the witnesses near the trees on his right, it is highly unlikely that bullet 9 caused much harm
- bullet 10 took crooks out with high certainty. I do not know where that bullet came from, but it is not likely that it was a sniper on the barns behind Trump, as they use a high power sniper rifle that, imho, would have caused much more damage
- I think bullet 10 was fired by the SWAT officer who fired bullet 9, or by the Washington Co sniper across the green (cfr. the yellowish circle and line of fire in the picture below)
I also believe that the snipers on the barns behind Trump returned fire very quickly after the first shots were fired, but as they did not have a direct line of sight, their bullets must have pruned the trees (cfr. the red circle in the image above).
so, this is my view on this matter…
meanwhile, I have been programming a ballistic trajectories calculator based on an open source library (GNU Ballistics Library download | SourceForge.net), and I am now integrating these trajectories in the kml files I released about a month ago.
this integration of ballistic trajectories took a little longer than expected as a consequence of the remarkable unforgiving nature of this forum:
- if you do not react to whatever allegations are made, you get buried under piles of nasty critiques and critiques
- several people do not seem to be willing to consider whatever alternative view but prefer to push their not-so-hidden agenda
and countering these messages consumes much precious time, but if that time is not invested in neutralizing critiques, they assume silence equals approval, and that has to be avoided…
sometimes I get the impression that they launch a coordinated distributed denial of service attack on people’s resources in the hope that they will surrender and give up, but (as you may have noticed by now) that is not my nature: I’d rather die than surrender.
all this introduced some delays in releasing a new version of my kml files that reflect how I see the scenario described above with the ballistic trajectories…
about terminology: I am not in favour of using the terms “second shooter”, because from my initial point of view, there was only 1 shooter.
with my current view, there may be 2 shooters, but the main shooter is certainly not the “2nd” shooter…
about your question wrt the back tracing of bullets: back tracing bullets is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that there are so many unknowns: the exact position of the podium, the position of Trump, the position of the bleachers and the JCB hydraulic lift, the location where the first bullet interacted with the bleachers, the elevation of the different points of interest and actors, etc, etc.
in the past month, the exact location of that interaction with these bleachers has shifted with about 2 ft, the elevation and height of the podium, Trump himself and even his ear have changed by several inches, and no matter which heights or distances or positions change, the back tracing snake oil salesman always comes back with the same “back traced shooting position”…
really: back tracing bullets with these parameters is sheer nonsense.
so, my approach to find out what is plausible or not is very simple: I now have the ballistic trajectories, and can plot the bullet’s path from whatever potential shooter’s position and see where the bullet arrives, taking into account various wind speeds, bullet weights, ballistic coefficients, etc, etc.
I am now adding the average speed for each of the trajectory points such that the audio analysts can easily calculate their snik-boom or something like that…
the margins of error are very small as far as I am concerned when using a sensible approach that minimizes the number of assumptions and degrees of freedom…
with my approach, you simply take a position from which you want the ballistic trajectory to start from (can be any position on any roof, vent, window, door, tree, etc) and where it should pass by/through, and then you see where the bullet passes on its way from the shooter to the indicated target, and if that makes sense, we are happy, if that trajectory does not make sense, you use different parameters (caliber, wind speed, muzzle velocity, etc)
3 Likes
The answer is, “it depends.” Variables include barrel length, ambient brightness (day, dusk, night), brand and type of ammo, caliber, type/brand/design of muzzle device, variations in powder load from round-to-round, natural variations, etc.
Here’s a few internet pictures to demonstrate.
Daylight, 3 fast shots, M4/AR15 presumably 5.56 cal (similar to Crooks) situation. This is almost exactly what Crooks was using in terms of rifle, caliber, barrel length, flash hider. Notice, no muzzle flash or “smoke” as one other member clamors about.
At the other extreme, you can find hot loaded powders and/or shorter barrels, or other variables in the dark what will include an impressive “flash.” This is supposedly an AR15, appears to have a similar M4 birdcage milspec flash hider device. Usually an yellow/orange signature.
I’ve seen both ends of this spectrum and everything in between from no flash to bright flash.
I generally agree with this as being one of the most 2 plausible scenarios.
My belief is that if one comes from the seemingly undeniable position of MIHOP with significant inside assistance, then it’s implausible or unlikely they’d have placed all their bets on Crooks accomplishing the job. They’d most certainly have had a professional contingency, with Crooks as the disposable stooge. So a 2nd shooter is a almost certainty.
All the “how did Crooks do it,” and cover-up evidence points to an inside job.
One caveat I have to @howdoiknowthisinfo is that the 2nd professional shooter would have used the same caliber as Crooks, to maintain plausible deniability. But possibly/likely a different rifle and optic more suited for a longer shot. If two different calibers were recovered from victims, that would undermine the entire 1 shooter setup. The pro used a 5.56mm just like Crooks. Still somewhat problematic with the barrel rifling evidence unless the pro used a frangible bullet, perhaps. We do see one bullet “disintegrate” on the bleacher railing.
I think the tall roof is the best location for that professional for the following reasons:
- Well concealed, walls on 2 sides, able to hide, easy access and exfiltration.
- Total situational awareness and observation of law enforcement, Crooks getting into position, the crowd, and Trump.
- Totally concealed from all LEO counter snipers. Both Hercules teams blocked by trees, the AGR team is facing the wrong direction, and the retaining pond snipers are obstructed by several obstacles and the distance is quite far as well (600 yards or something extreme).
- A person in a white tyvex type suit with a white rifle would be almost invisible.
Fire and flee, let Crooks fire his volley and all attention on him.
My only reservations thus far
- Possible issues with sound sources and bullet arrival times, but it’s not compelling. Too many variables.
- Possible 1st shot by Crooks on video but it’s such low quality it’s not entirely compelling.
- Highly suspect 5, then 8, shell casing count on the roof.
2 Likes
what would be the 2nd scenario that you consider plausible?
House Task Force Obtains ‘Gruesome Autopsy’ of Trump Rally Shooter Thomas Crooks House Task Force Obtains "Gruesome Autopsy" of Trump Rally Shooter Thomas Crooks | The Gateway Pundit | by Anthony Scott
How gruesome could it be? We have all seen the photos. Let’s see the report. What is gruesome is doing a search on entry and exit wounds to try to clarify (based on provided photos) which is which. I personally think one entry wound is to the back of the head. The wound looks like an exit but has the black/grey ring around it which is usually found with an entry. I think there may be one from the front also that knocked out the teeth. There has to be 2. You have the eye, back of the head, mouth and neck in pics and one bullet is not feasible for all 3 imo.
Here are some examples of real entry/exit:
After seeing all kinds of the examples I conclude that a sniper shot would not explode a head every time. I guess all of the ballistic heads shot by pros are not always accurate in every instance. I only saw exploded heads if it was a gun in the mouth suicide.
FYI Upon my searches, these professional make-up entry and exit wounds came up! Not too far fetched for me.
1 Like
In order of most probable:
-
Tall rooftop, pro shooter, first 3 shots. This assumes the strong circumstantial evidence of an inside job and cover up. This would far be the best location for a professional. Well hidden, totally concealed from all counter snipers, no special “set up,” trajectory and situational awareness are perfect, escape is a breeze. Climb up well in advance, hide against the walls, observe, fire, exfiltrate.
-
Crooks was a loner.
-
Vents are a good location as well but the evidence is zero at this point, other than trajectory. We have a lot of odd behavior with the counter snipers in/around that AGR#6. But no small task to set up, and we don’t even know if any of those vents are even possible for a position.
-
2nd story window is too well observed and obvious, and the trajectory fails. I don’t think this is likely, might not even be possible.
-
Window 3 is NOT POSSIBLE and should be ruled out.
3 Likes
Hello howdoIknow
Based upon what you say, I believe I understand where you are coming from. It seems clear to me though that my own approach to this problem is very different from your approach. Allow me to at least elaborate upon how I see things, and how I think you differ from me.
I know my own limitations. Both in terms of mathematics and computer programming. For this reason, the contribution that I am able to make here is indeed limited. Nevertheless, I do believe that I can produce meaningful information, that those far more advanced in these areas will be able to make use of.
If I may fantasise for a moment, and suppose that I was deeply knowledgeable of the technical aspects of calculus, and also computer programming, including firearms, then here is how I would attempt to solve the problem.
I would do my absolute best to determine the precise ground elevation points of both Trump’s podium and the bleachers, including the precise height at which the bullet - that is the first bullet - struck Donald Trump’s ear, which also went on to strike the bleachers. I would seek to determine the height values for both based upon some absolute standard. In addition to this, I would also want to know the distance along the ground between both points as accurately as possible.
With these two points spatially determined, I would then look at potential shooting positions e.g. the vents of building six, the rooftop of building six, and also the high building well behind where crooks was positioned.
This would allow me to have three points of contact for a theoretical bullet trajectory: the point at which the bullet left the barrel of the gun, the point at which it touched Donald Trump’s ear, and the point that it touched the bleachers to the left of Trump, producing the puff of smoke.
From this, one could determine a unique parabola connecting up the points for each of the various shooter positions.
With this in hand, I would then use the appropriate modelling software to generate the pathways of bullets in-flight i.e. their curvature, taking account of such things as muzzle velocity, grains/weight, and wind speeds/directions etc.
Generating many different ‘real world’ bullet paths, I would use precise mathematics to see if they would match the parabolas of the various shooting position scenarios, as detailed.
I would be under the impression that some of the parabolas associated with some of the proposed shooter positions would not match up with any real-world bullet trajectories, and therefore would be proven invalid. But that there should be a strong match to at least one of the shooting positions, with a very credible real-world bullet path, as modelled, strongly matching its parabola based upon the three key points that define the bullet’s journey: leaving the barrel of the gun, connecting Donald Trump’s ear, and connecting the bleachers.
This would be how I would seek to determine where the shooter was operating from - at least for the first three shots.
Now based upon what you say in your post HowdoIknow, although you agree that the first shot struck Donald Trump’s ear and then went on to strike the bleachers, you believe it is completely impossible to spatially determine these two points relative to one another.
As a result, you have proceeded to focus solely upon generating various bullet pathways from various shooting positions. The problem here though, as I see it, is that with your approach, you simply have nothing to test your trajectories against. There is no standard with which to establish success.
It seems to me that by tweaking the appropriate variables, you could generate any valid filing solution for any of the proposed shooter positions. And thus, by being able to prove everything, you are ultimately able to prove nothing.
Your last paragraph says it all. You will model things to see ‘where the bullet passes on its way,’ and if it ‘makes you happy,’ then great. But if it doesn’t, you will just tweak the variables… until you are happy.
I do not think that this is a route to success.
I do not tweak any variables…
there are two sets of bullets: 1-3 and 4-8.
what I am doing is the following:
- I take a potential shooter’s position, e.g., crooks on lane 19 or 20 on the roof of AGR building 6
- we know that a few points of interest were injured or damaged by the first 3 bullets: Trump’s ear, the railing of the right/south bleachers, David Dutch, James Copenhaver and the JCB hydraulic lift
- so, we iterate for several bullet weights, muzzle velocities, wind speeds, etc, the bullet trajectories from that shooter’s position to the end point of each of these points of interest
- if a combination of windspeed, bullet properties, muzzle velocity, etc match/hit the targets, then that combination is something that is likely to have been used during the attack
- if there is no match/hit with a certain combination, the next one is tested, etc…
there is no cherry picking, no tweaking, etc…
I do not know how more exhaustive and impartial one can be than what I am doing…
the scenario you describe is very much similar to what I am doing…
you assume “there is nothing to test against”, but that is wrong: if the trajectories from whatever shooting position use similar parameters and hit the known targets, then it is a set of parameters that matches reality, and my approach is the most flexible and generic you can imagine, as opposed to the back tracing approach based on 2 or 3 points which are highly uncertain and for which many guesses must be made to make everything match to the preferred result from certain individuals
@brian60221 @sorey @redranamber @gfgftt5d0q
I’ve updated and added to my recognition aids and threw in my now complete AGR building and door map. Please let me know if you see any errors or find any new information. Thanks, all!
2 Likes
Not sure if the DM system is working here, so please let me know if you want an account on the file-sharing thing I’m making. You can control your own area and keep uploading the latest versions of your research products.
It’s up to you. I am going to close my current Dropbox account and open a new so I can share my investigation material with family. I can do both, no problem.
I’m not sure how to use the DM feature, but I have recieved multiple DM here.
I made you an account. Please check your DMs.
Where do I find my DM’s?
I don’t know how to do that. Can i post the images here somehow?