I have to admit that I did not ever consider the possibility of Thomas using offset iron sights. You are indeed correct that the rifle ejection pattern is to the right of the receiver. The receiver however can have its left side pointing down. This would eject the cases in a more random fassion.
I am also curious about the muzzle device. I can’t tell if it is a flash suppressor or a muzzle break. The muzzle break would cause a large difference in the sound of the muzzle from different orientations. You can easily experience this at the range.
Shoot a rifle with a muzzle break and pay attention to the sound. If you have someone else shoot it and you position yourself about a foot from them on the side, you can feel the concussive blast in your stomach as the rifle/carbine is being shot. If you get directly behind the shooter, the noise will dramatically change and that thump felt in the stomach will not be present.
The main question that I have now is explaining the measurable differences between the sonic crack of the pullet passing and the muzzle report. Unless different loads were stuffed in that magazine, that time delay should be roughly the same for all shots fired.
Few will forget the first experience of shooting an AR15. The first one that I ever shot was a Rock Island Arms AR-15 NMA2. I was surprised when I sent the first bullet down range. The buffer tube spring made a spring like noise because of the firm check weld. The bones in your face/head act like microphones and channel that sound to your ears. I earned my Winter Seed Rifleman patch with my RRA AR-15 NMA2. Getting into the position of “natural point of aim” with the rifle aligned to the target is easier for me with this NMA2 than my other AR-15 firearms.
I have yet to see a comprehensive Time Domain Analysis (TDA) which can be used to triangulate the origin of each shot with a high level of accuracy. I have been watching Dr. Chris on X and I find the analysis very insightful. Maybe I have missed it but every analysis I have seen aligns the audio by the report of the first shot. That’s good for comparing sound from differing perspectives but it does not provide a time in space reference.
Assuming that several of the video tracks contain GPS EXIF Metadata, you should be able to align each audio track to a fixed GPS time and location. Once aligned to a fixed time reference you then calculate Time of Detection and Time Difference of Arrival between the microphones.
Without GPS time data, there is another way to define a time reference point. You already have at least 3 fixed microphones; Trump, RSBN News, and the Stewart Film. Knowing the approximate distance between these microphone, you calculate the expected Time Difference of Arrival between these locations. This creates a spatial triangle. Next, using the supersonic report (snick), you can calculate the distance from shot origin to microphone thus pinpointing the origin.
Plot this data on a graph, where each cell equals a specific distance, and you pinpoint the origin of each shot.
I can do this but I would need access to the original video recording as well as measurements of the site.
I edited this to remove in incorrect statement that stated the triangle provides two origins. This is incorrect. It is the supersonic report that provides distance to origin which then fixes the position. I will a write up a better description that explains the process in detail.
This might be a good exercise to triangulate the location of the shooter(s). I suspect however that you will discover that the shooter(s) was a single lone nutter named Thomas Crooks located on the roof of the building. If however you can determine that there was a second or third or fourth shooter with this analysis, it would open up a much larger can of worms.
I think the sound analysis to locate the source of the shots may be useful, but the most likely explanation is a single shooter. It’s too complicated to have multiple shooters and far riskier for the Government.
I believe this was a planned assassination of Donald Trump sponsored by the high levels of the Government to take place in front of the media. They expected to livestream the murder to their great amusement. I like @anna_esq analysis of the media spectacle.
I am sure the present Government and the Media would have been so excited to incite the ensuing civil war. This would be a great distraction from their absolute failures.
My very thought, and has been ever since the one guy was ID’d as ATF.
Plausible hypothesis: Planners involved every possible 3 letter agency, as well as state, county & local LEOs to create maximum confusion. The more the merrier, in that all possible finger pointing, deflection and obfuscation is amplified. I won’t be surprised if someone is ID’d as DEA at this point. The effect ensures an incomprehensible, time consuming goose chase for truth seekers. A game of Clue on steroids.
Did they intentionally plan it to make it look just like keystone cops?
Can you explain why the shots in Stewart’s video now sound more like glass shattering for some of them? Especially shots 1 and 3. These are new sounds.
If there was a second shooter , don’t expect to find them in open windows . Check out the DC sniper who cut a hole in his trunk of his car and used it to shoot dead 17 people over a couple months .
If there was a second shooter , he wasn’t in an open window .
(Chris) “…one of the most important events of our lifetime…”
Indeed, and something must be mentioned in this context: This was planned to take place on live tv.
If the deep state was involved- and my suspicion is that the patsy was guided by a secret agent or two, ala the Whitmer case- then escalates a plain assassination to a provocatory act of terrorism. I mean ‘terrorism’ in the original sense of putting fear into the ranks of the political enemy.
Why didn’t Trump have a private security expert on his payroll, or he payroll of the RNC, to preview and overview the GOVERNMENT plan and execution? Didn’t Trump learn A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G from his first term, the lawfare, and the threats from many prominent Deep State denizens?
This is a serious question. This just doesn’t make sense, unless it is somehow illegal to have private security (at least in an advisory and oversight role) in addition to “Secret Service” and other government drones?
It isn’t an issue of money. And it isn’t an issue of being able to find someone who could have spotted the MASSIVE security risks from a hundred yards out: If Eric Prince, of Blackrock, wouldn’t volunteer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxpJnUWHxds), I’m guessing there would be thousands of more-than-competent sniper and security experts would would be glad to do so.
And it has been MONTHS since Tucker Carlson (and many other people Trump would know and have reason to trust) have come out and SAID there would certainly be an assassination attempt.
So why did Trump walk into this space with, apparently, NO competent, high-level, security supervisor of his own choice? What don’t I understand?
Chris? Maybe you can suggest an answer? 'Cause this seems more fishy than anything else. Did Trump not know about the JFK evidence? About the 911 evidence? About Tucker Carlson’s broadcast? About any of the copious evidence that the US government doesn’t just have a record of gross incompetence…it a millions-of-miles long record of criminal activity, and murder, of the most obnoxious sorts, against all manner of innocent civilians. And, absolutely, against any practice of Democracy which doesn’t comply fully with CIA terms and conditions.
If you weren’t convinced by the loud bangs, Trump grabbing his ear, bleeding, people in the crowd being hit by bullets, snipers on rooftops shooting back, a dead guy on the roof right where the bullets seemed to come from, Trump’s doctor saying he got shot in the ear and describing how he treated it, I don’t think there’s any evidence that would persuade you.
This rings true for me. Additionally I don’t think the positioning of a professional assassin would be left to chance. They would not be hanging round waiting for a vacant window. They’d be tucked securely into a predetermined cubby hole, quite likely proximate to and in alignment with the patsy’s expected shooting position.
Just saying that I would like more evidence.
Like a video taken from behind him, where we can clearly see the damage to his ear before he goes down.
Would you change your mind if you saw clear evidence of no damage to his ear, from a camera in the crowd directly behind him, immediately after Trump pulled his hand away from his ear?
I’m in data collection mode, just like Chris and most on this site. I think it’s a fair question to ask and with so many people with cameras on him, just saying, be nice to see that angle.
Given enough evidence, I would change my mind and believe anything. But your idea (Trump staged an event in which multiple people were killed and injured, and then used sleight of hand to fake an injury to his ear, and the Secret Service and FBI went along with it) is probably the wildest theory I’ve heard on this subject. If I’m honest I find it a tad annoying.
Agree @cmartenson on resetting. Continue to work the evidence to the extent it’s possible but difficult. Fist principles. New angles - or revisit different angles.
Alternative Angle. Assuming nothing current powers that be do is accidental re PR/communications perspective.
Newfound press attention and TV coverage + high speed camera angle – what can we find out about who, how press decided, was told, tipped off on attending?
Concerted effort to quickly change the narrative. Was the timing of Microsoft-CrowdStrike IT outage timing a coincidence? Was deposing Joe and coronating Kamala just over a week after failed assassination pre-planned timing? Sped up to regain the narrative?
Is there corroboration for censorship by Google, others on Trump raising fist photo? Assume it’s true, would like additional examples. Obviously - this is a story THEY don’t want.
Post attempt honeymoon very short-lived, back to MAGA extremism biggest threat with Kamala our best hope to save democracy.
Switching of narrative so quickly reminds me of
Covid narrative failing – pivot to Ukraine
Ukraine losing, a money suck, not popular with American People
October 7th attack
on and on
+++ Stories that support narrative
---- Stories that run afoul of narrative - gaslight, censor, change narrative
Are any investigative journalists are pursuing some of these angles? Forensics and hard evidence seems to be in short supply. What “conspiracy theories” are squashed the hardest? Maybe there are clues there. What is the equivalent of the Wuhan Wet Market Bats and Pangolins vs. Wuhan Lab?
In the interests of doing something relevant, I’m watching it for you to find the interesting bits.
Cullen specifically calls out your measurements - he says it’s 472 feet from the kid to the podium, but 435 to the lower window.
At 43:23, Cullen identifies a silenced shot. There is more detail for this at 1:04:05. He goes on to claim it’s a subsonic blackout rifle from the trees. This is firing at the counter sniper team on building 2, which is why they take forever to engage Crooks. The evidence for them taking fire and looking to the trees is at 16:53.
At 47:40, Cullen finds what seems to be a bullet going through a couple of frames of video. At 54:26, Cullen shows a “muzzle flash” from the ground window.
His modelling activity is extremely impressive. At 1:18:42 he shows the trajectory of the bullets for hitting the back of the bleachers matching a shot from the lower window.
Cullen also convinces Clay Martin that the shot is a subsonic round by slowing the audio down to 0.1x. I’m not sure he should be convinced.
Most of the rest is pure supposition. Somehow, Crooks is dead from the snipers before he takes any shots. I don’t get who is supposed to have made that shot. The guy underneath used an AR for 3 shots then switched to a different gun for the next 5. There are 5 shooters total, tree near the building has a guy with a mohawk, patsy on the building (not actually Crooks), guy in uniform in the window (who cuts himself), one on the water tower, one in the trees.
It’s a terrible photoshop job on that 3rd window Chris. Here is a montage of the window. Initially there was a maroon blind down (top left) until ~ 5 sec before the first shot. It looks rigged to pull up from a distance. Then the blind opens (top right) and you can make out the window structure. An inwards opening frame with what looks like a centre arm pivot. It has a large frame casting a large shadow. Then we have the section of video during the shooting where the window appears highly reflective(left window bottom), except the frame isn’t casting a shadow like the any other point in the film for any window. Then the shooting stops and the window goes back to being black and the flash from scope/gun appears (top middle). Obviously the agents that digitally altered had a lot of work and were focussing on the section with shooting and missed the film showing the flash.
I’ve been talking about this also - great idea. Preferably avoid using the snicks, because their origin depends on many factors (trajectory, bullet speed, etc). Using the reports only with good position and time tracking can calculate exactly where the shots were fired from and can do so with only one degree of freedom - the speed of sound.
