So your heights are based off the impact of the hydraulic lift? Sorry, but that is much too inacurate to take anything in consideration. The clearly defined point of impact is the right corner of the bleachers. How can you take the hydraulic lift impact if the bullet allready hit the bleachers? It gives you a complete different line and is completly inaccurate.
Yes, please indicate your hight of the impact of the right corner bleachers before we continue this conversation…
Hey Roger.
I studied some time before claiming this. I heave some things pointing that the step rise could be a little bigger.
Here is a screenshot from Trump going up the stairs (Source). The footage was taken around 21 Yards from the north bleacher. That makes a good photo with almost no distortion on measuring heights.
Trump reaches his maximum height in that frame, this is a good assumption because his leg is fully extended and his height can be measured. The calculated rise of the step is 8 ¼ inch. Doing the inverse assumption of 7.5 inches for the stairs Trump height would be 67 ¼ inch, that is 6 ¾ inches lower than his real height, which is very difficult to explain.
The 7.5inch rise is the maximum for IBC standard but for the OSHA standard the maximum height is 9 1/2 inches. OSHA standards are less strict and more commonly used in government facilities.
I also made additional measurements from other view points and reach the same stair rise.
I do not have the exact height of the bleachers railing impact.
you work under the assumption that the bullet that was used originates from a AR-style rifle, and behaves very randomly as soon as it strikes something.
I work under the assumption that the real shooter was a sniper using a sniper rifle, and the deviation of a sniper’s bullet would be very minor after touching or penetrating the railing, which is why I only care about the end point in the JCB hydraulic lift
the height at the railing will be slightly lower than what I assume as Trump’s ear height.
the railing of these bleachers is made of aluminum, which offers very little resistance, as you may know…
you still did not give any feedback on the height of the building you use in your model…
the problem with using models is that:
this image shows the outcome of 12 different tests with a sniper rifle similar to the rifles used by the snipers behind Trump on the barns. the shots were fired by a machine (!) to avoid interference of breathing and heartbeat and nervousness, etc.
The variable was the powder load of the cartridge, and you can see that for each set of 5 bullets fired per test (by a machine!) in exactly the same lab conditions, that there were 1 or more bullets that decided to deviate from the grouping of the other bullets.
so, in order to avoid too many abstraction/modelling errors, I use the raw coordinates data… in 1985, the heights of the different buildings of the AGR site were available, and that is where the 416.57 cm above sea level that I use in my calculations comes from.
even a couple of centimeters higher or lower would not make a difference: if you have a direct line of sight on something, you can hit that something, and there is a direct line of sight from the roof of that building to Trump and the object behind him in the line of fire from that shooter position.
using a sniper rifle gives very little vertical drop over 300 yards, and a sniper’s bullets are much more robust than those from a pistol or an AR-style rifle.
so, what height do you use in your model for that building?
there is a theory that a lot of the officers went to check behind the buildings towards one of the gas stations. I think one of the snipers that last saw Crooks sent out a message that the guy they were tracking might have gone to “Sheetz” (gas station not too far away from the event). So for now, until we get more information/footage, it is possible that the bulk of the search on the ground was dedicated to the other side of the building.
But one thing that really bugs me about that theory is that we clearly see officers use their radios, and some are even looking at the roof like 2-3 minutes prior to shots fired. So it’s like…okay were they searching for multiple people? was there a mistake in the communication? was the communication from the officers even heard by anyone else? so many basic questions that we still don’t have answers to.
Before you dismiss my use of the JCB hydraulic lift as a reference endpoint for the first bullet, you need to prove that hitting or penetrating the non-steel railing would divert the path of the bullet, because that is not what happened as shown below, i.e. the reason I say this is very simple and is explained below.
So let’s assume we agree on the following:
In my model, the real shooter was a sniper using a sniper rifle and was shooting from an elevation of a bit above the top of AGR building 7 (coordinates -79.97010210316301, 40.859031733531), and the JCB hydraulic lift is at about 300 yards distance.
The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVQa42YI6LU shows a man using a rifle (Ruger M77 Hawkeye Alaskan with 300 Win Mag) with a suppressor. This rifle combination looks very similar to the MK13 mod7 that was used by the snipers on the barns behind Trump. He uses 180 grain Winchester Magnum bullets fired at 2850 fps to see how much 16 gauge solid steel metal plating the bullet would penetrate at 50 yards. 16 gauge = 1/16th inch = 1.6 mm.
10 solid steel plates of these add up to 10/16th of an inch (1.6 cm) of solid steel, and these are penetrated in a straight line without any deviation when fired at 50 yards with a 180 grain bullet at 2850 fps.
In fairness:
As an aside: when I read some of the comments on this forum, I sometimes really wonder if the people who make bold statements know what they are talking about and where they get the references for their claims from…
As I said before, I limit myself to making statements about something I know something about and have extensive proven experience with myself. So I will not do extensive sound analyses, for example…
For example, a few days ago I saw a comment from someone who apparently assumes that a bullet travels in a straight line and that you can easily calculate the height difference using the Pythagorean rules…
As you may have noticed by now, I have very detailed arguments and evidence for everything I say… I simply do not make statements without references. I have worked on many forensic cases, and none of my reports have ever been found to be incorrect or questionable.
As for your claim that the path of a bullet, such as the ones I assume were used, would have deviated from its path by hitting the side of the stands: show me the evidence you use to support this claim, because I cannot find any supporting data for it at all.
The railings of these bleachers were not made of 16 gauge solid steel, let alone 10 sheets of it. The railings were probably made of very soft aluminum (because those stands are not transportable otherwise). That is, a sniper rifle bullet would have easily passed through that aluminum and would not have deviated at all from its path to the JCB hydraulic lift where it ended.
In short: the height of the railing of the stand is irrelevant and the JCB hydraulic lift at 3.12m is a very robust and reliable end point whose coordinates we can determine very precisely!
So, what is the height of AGR Building X (which is the 2nd highest building of the AGR site and the highest building at the main AGR parking) at the above coordinates that you have put into your model?
I think you simply entered the wrong height for that building in your 3D CAD model.
If so, correct it.
No hard feelings and let’s move on.
However, if you did enter the correct height for that building, I wonder how you can explain that you can simply see this building from the lawn where Trump was standing…
I already posted this.
The risers were most likely 8 inches, it was 6 steps/risers up to the podium, the podium should be about 48" for all calculations. Give or take an inch or two for variance.
If the stage height rises 4.5 inches the line of fire rises 6 times that because of distances of the rail to stage (28 yards) and de stance from rail to building 6 wall (167 yards). Therefore, the line of fire rises 27 inches (2.25 feet). That is a lot. The distance to Crooks reduces from 4 feet to 1.75 feet.
We entering the margin of error from the height measurement. For example, Trump is 0.5 feet above or below the specified elevation, the line of fire is within 1.25 feet above Crooks and 4.75 Feet below. The elevation from Google Earth is not accurate enough.
what a coincidence that the Spa Guy put this short video (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uu9TO55coKg) online with the correct title: the Trump assassins…
the Spa Guy does not realize how accurate he has named this video…
in this image you can see on the left the position of rib 20 of the building on which the man on that roof died (indicated with the red curvy arrow) and the position where (from my point of view) the real shooter was located.
there is (imho) no possible way that it can be made any clearer that AGR building X is HIGHER than what the 3D CAD model claims…
The SS & FBI said numerous times they did not use drones during the rally, then who are using the drones???
There is a least one instance you can hear a drone in realDJstew724’s video when you slow it down to 1/100 speed. Maybe other videos reveal the drone audio as well.
hello Harryx,
this is very interesting indeed!
these drone sightings right before the 1st shots and shortly after/during the shooting make perfect sense in the scenario I elaborated on in my previous posts:
the man on the roof had to be at the exact position on the roof of that building at a particular time, and as he was running late, he was running over the roofs to the position where he died.
the controllers of the drone (or drones) that was (were) seen right before the first shot was fired must have been the ones who gave the “all clear to proceed” to the real shooter I have mentioned a couple of times in my previous posts!
Hi VT,
For ref 690 we took the below picture and looking at the first step that is lower and the last one higher, therefore they compensate each other. An average 6 steps 7.5 Inch is giving us our 45". Is there another method we can be more accurate? I would be glad to change this height, but we need a more accurate source of some kind…
Maybe somebody should bring along a measuring tape to the next Trump rally?
Indeed. On the range where I’m a member, I did a video in December, without a rangefinder or drone, about the math of an inclined shot from 800 meters using 55 grains 5.56x45 with an AR and scope… Some time later I used a rangefinder and a drone to confirm the measurements and have a closer view of the hits, etc… and the altitudes on Google Earth do have a margin of error enough to make trajectories analysis using GE a not precise exercise, IMO.
I did not get close-up photos. I’ll go back tomorrow with a digital camera, zoom lens, and drone. I’m unsure what I can get away with or how close I can get, but I’ll push harder this time. Unfortunately, it’s probably too late for anything pertinent.
That is the way BCESU numbered the building in their report. You can see in many pictures of the entrance to BCESU #1 in that diagram, that it is AGR Building #6. It is you and BCESU that is incorrectly numbering the buildings. Chris has not been mistaken in calling it AGR #6.
Your assumptions are not all correct, either. Your words come across rather arrogant.
no worries, I will call it AGR building X from now on, as it cannot be the same number as the low building that is called AGR building 6 in the BCESU report…
remember, X marks the spot 
why won’t you link any pictures and show us what you’re talking about? like the other guy said, your arrogance is really weird.
He’s doing the same time-wasting vampire tactics to you guys that he did with me.
He came with a bold theory. I asked him if he’d tested it. He said yes, and urged me to visit his site. His site is made to look like it’s saying something, but isn’t actually substantive. I asked him to show his work, and he wouldn’t. I did his work for him, and his idea wasn’t consistent with the audio data, but he never acknowledged that or tried to patch up the idea.
As far as I’m concerned, he’s a saboteur and/or trying to gather IP addresses with his useless site.
I went over both stage and bleachers numbers again. Actually, up to now schroederized made the most accurate drawing in his post 160 in topic 40703:
Below you see his drawings. He also estimated the stage hight at 48 Inches. What he did not get right was the floor height of building 6, of which we are all clear on now (1335). One thing that he did draw our attention to is that the speedy bleachers are on wheels in the middle of the stage which gives us a 1336 height instead of 1335 (which is the height of the corner of the bleachers) See Google Earth Pro confirmation below. What schroederized did not at all take into consideration is that when installing the bleachers they put wooden riser blocks and crank up the stage to stabilize. There is a good video here where you can see the wheels in the middle and the way the crank up the stage to stabilize it:
Up to now we have added 4 inches for this preload. Giving Crooks the benefit of the doubt of I am willing to decrease this number from 4 to 1 Inch. In addition, I put the stage from 45 Inches to 48 Inches also giving Crooks the benefit of the doubt. I also took the impact postion from schroederized moving it from -3 to -4.152. So, we have pushed the numbers in favor of Crooks. Please have a look at the new Excel table. If everybody agrees with these numbers, I will back trace the bullet accordingly.
Shout out and thanks to everyone in this community that is contributing time and effort for theories, evidence collection, calculations, evidence research, etc…
You are all awesome.
Truth matters. Transparency matters. Ethics matter.
Great work on handling issues better than many of our government organizations and their leaders.
I updated the pictures and text that I could edit and corrected it.
you are the first person to point this out.
thanks for your observation and feedback!
as the building I have been referring to has no official number in your models, I will be calling it building X, appending (which is the 2nd highest building of the AGR site and the highest building at the side of the main AGR parking).
I am not arrogant at all.
place yourself in my position and realize that what I have said in this forum and have shown in many pictures I uploaded in this forum and all the pictures I put on my website (which I will update for the numbering in a couple of jiffies) has been mostly ignored by many of you.
what would you sound like if you are convinced that the masters of this forum:
Chris mentions in almost all of his videos that he is open to any input that challenges your model and that you are open to an open debate about options you may not have considered.
well, I have given you plenty of references and evidence of where the real shooter must have been, namely on top of the roof of the 2nd highest building of the AGR site, which is the highest building at the main parking of the AGR site.
it was my mistake to call this AGR building 7, as I assumed that the BCESU report was more authoritative than Chris’ numbering scheme, but as you have pointed out (as the first person who pointed this out (many thanks for that)), Chris’ numbering is right and the BCESU was using an alternative scheme, so I have updated the posts that I could still edit, and from now on, I will call it AGR building X until I am given the accurate number of this building.
as somebody just claimed that I did not give evidence or references to what I have been saying, I am happy to summarize these as follows:
so, if you input all this in whatever calculation device or tool of your choosing, you will come to the conclusion that I have been informing you about all the time: a bullet form a sniper rifle shot along the line of sight from the real shooter to the JCB hydraulic lift travels above that line of sight, grazes Trump’s ear touches or penetrates the non-solid steel railing of the bleachers and ends up in the JCB hydraulic lift.
you assume that the shots that were fired at Trump originate from the rifle found on the roof (DPMS A-15 from 2013), but this does not need to be the case if the bullets were not shot by this rifle!
it is extremely likely that the real shooter used a decent sniper rifle, which is why I am using the references of these rifles in my model!
I have also shown you
Roger-knight points out the following:
let me focus on the following points step by step:
the emphasized text shows the real problem: you swear by the correctness of the 3D CAD model you have developed, and if something does not match that model, you dismiss everything that endangers the model.
if somebody insists on the simple fact that it is extremely likely that the model uses wrong information, that somebody (in this case this is myself ;-)) is called arrogant and you dismiss whatever is being said.
this phenomenon is called cognitive dissonance from your side!
the reason why I have been saying over and over that the model is NOT correct is very simple: your model does not match reality…
Chris mentions in almost every video that you are open to discuss the validity of the model you have been using, but it seems to me that you are not!
your model claims that the shooter on top of that roof would have to shoot THROUGH many buildings, but as I have shown in many posts, this is NOT the case!
if your model claims something that is not true, your model is wrong, and the thing that is wrong is the height of that building that you have modelled!
for your convenience, I have included two of these pictures below.
that is exactly right: the real shooter shot from ABOVE the position of the man on the roof.
whether it was crooks, I do not know, but it is exactly right that the real shooter shot from a higher roof than the roof on which that man was shot dead.
the fact that you say “even higher than crooks” shows your bias that this man was the perpetrator and that you exclude every alternative possibility in advance!
bias and excluding things in advance is not a reliable approach in this matter!
this highlights the real problem: you believe the math which is based on incorrect input data, and I base myself and my calculations on more accurate data and I support every of my findings with corroborating picture evidence!
if you think that pointing out that the 3D CAD model is using wrong parameters for a certain building is arrogant, then, yes, I may look arrogant.
in my world this is not arrogant.
NOT pointing out an error would be negligence and unforgivable.
no hard feelings: mistakes are made, corrected, and then we move on.
I am looking forward to the moment that you realize that I have been right all along.
if you think this is arrogant, then put yourself in my position and think again.
