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.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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!
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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:
- are making a huge mistake about the trajectories of the first bullets: as it is mentioned above by several people, you all have been looking for a solution to the question where a “second shooter” could have been positioned, but you cannot find any solution to this question.
- make the bold statement that touching or even penetrating the railing of the bleachers would change the trajectory significantly without giving any reference whatsoever, only opinion.
- you assume that the man who died on the roof must have been the shooter and you are trying to backtrace all bullet trajectories to this location!
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:
- the real shooter was located on top of the highest building at the AGR building (https://maps.app.goo.gl/JNxsoRig7KVspuCc9). the highest point of that roof is at about 416.57m above sea level, which is about 9 meters from the ground
- there is a direct line of sight with the victims of the 1st bullet: Trump’s ear at 2.99m above the ground while standing on a podium of about 1.2m, the railing of the bleachers and the JCB hydraulic lift
- I deduce the height of the impact in the JCB hydraulic lift to be about 3.12m, which is the height of the John Deere tractor, of which I have provided you photo evidence in an earlier post
- the terrain is not even, which accounts for apparent height differences when referring to heights from the ground up
- the impact or ricochet or penetration of the bullet through or on the railing of the bleachers would not have caused a significant deviation in the bullet’s path, as I have shown yesterday in my post where I show you that a sniper’s bullet penetrates 10 sheets of 16 gauge solid steel plates without any deviation whatsoever, and the bleachers are not made of solid steel, but most likely of aluminum, which is very soft and would not deviate the bullet trajectory either. if someone claims otherwise, they should show the evidence, because 10 sheets of 16 gauge solid steel plates do NOT deviate the bullet whatsoever!
- therefore, it is very reasonable to assume that the line of sight from the top of the 2nd highest building to the impact point on the JCB hydraulic lift is a very likely bullet trajectory candidate to be considered
- as a bullet does not travel in a straight line, but makes a parabola, we know 2 points of this parabola: the exit point of the sniper rifle’s muzzle and the impact point on the JCB hydraulic lift, and the rest of the actual bullet trajectory’s parabola is ABOVE the line of sight
- the line of sight is thus the lowest approximation of the bullet’s path!
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
- pictures from Spa Guy’s excellent drone survey that show very clearly that the building I am referring to is HIGHER than the roof where the man was shot dead. I do not label this man with a name because I am not convinced that the person on the roof is the same as the person in the pictures that have been circulating
- that the top of this building is also visible from the rally area, cf. the images below
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.
1 Like
It doesn’t really matter as long as you indicate you’re using the BCESU picture numbers. Just saying Chris was wrong using AGR’s actual building numbers rubbed some of us the wrong way.
When investigating something as important as we feel this is, some of us are going to be suspicious of things that might be a wild goose chase. We have already seen some new posters that are questionable.
that is fine by me.
I have updated the labelling in my system and will update the stuff with the corrected numbering on my page shortly.
thanks again for pointing it out!
1 Like
Hi howdoiknowthisinfo,
In the meantime, were you able to determine the height of the bleachers corner which is the second impact point after Trumps ear?
Sorry to insist, but the main and most important two things in this analysis are the height of Trumps Ear and height of the impact position of the bleachers corner. Only these two points matters.
We are still waiting for that information from you, before we are able evaluate your data further.
2 Likes
hello Roger,
I am adding this point to my model and will let you know shortly.
AGR building numbers can be seen on the photos.
The mistake/confusion was made by secret service different numbering.