Hi BigTim,
Thanks always for your detailed explaination:
A cop scanning the room for evidence 6 seconds after the first shooting and 10 seconds before the last 10th shot?
1 Like
That’s not always a good idea. The answers given by Acting SS Director Rowe during his senate hearing concerning e.g. comm “siloing”, a cellular network breakdown from 15:00 until 17:00 disabling drone operation, the existence of a unified command or their capability to perform EW were of value. I think Rowe is a quite honest person, but under pressure from well known types like Lindsey Graham, who explicitly wanted to see more heads roll, which brings Rowe in conflict with his assignment and his, I believe, true collegiality.
@Sorey (thank you!) provided me with a link to Rowe’s senate hearing. The QA session starts at 29:55. Just skip the statements from the FBI guy, they amount to nothing but regurgitated oatmeal gruel. I’m still looking for an official transscript.
1 Like
So, the light must be 1 of 3 things.
-
Generated from interior. Limits it to a flashlight or something reflective of a bright external source. There are finite explanations. Presumably the building was secured by LEO, so a flashlight is limited to a police officer looking for a suspect, or something very bright/reflective of outside light sources. In the most extreme, a sniper assassin climbing from his hidden nest using a flashlight to escape is plausible.
-
An exterior light source reflecting on the window. There are many phones, some of which might have a light, there are car headlights pointed in this direction, the sun is up and to the left of this image and possibly reflecting off a phone surface or some other bright reflective object.
-
These flashes do not line up with the sound-recorded gunshots. so perhaps the sound is not synched or it is some super suppressed firearm muzzle flash.
To my eyes it appears most like an interior flashlight, the owner of which could be a officer searching or a assassin escaping a dark room.
I remain open to any other explanation.
not at all!
none of the three letter organizations is to be trusted whatsoever…
rowe even suggested that Trump was injured by shrapnel of the teleprompters… as far as I know, the teleprompters were not injured whatsoever…
really… I gave these hearings a couple of tries, and within the minute I had to puke or go for an urgent number 2…
- Absolutely agree with your statement, Rowe being not at all a quite honest person.
- Would narrow that “none of the three letter…” in to the more upper ranks of these organisations. I think there are also some people in the lower levels (the ones who do the day in/day out work) that are pissed by the behaviour of the people in charge.
- I think that was FBI Wray who said that.
- True, if you cut out all the bullshit and asslicking, a 4h hearing can be shorted down to a 10min video with a bit of substance.
Well, as you know, we are evaluating hypotheses 2 which is the theory of two shooters and would agree with your Point 1 with the following theory: According to 3 independent studies, the back traced bullet points to the upper portion of the room from where the aggressive light is coming from (out of the window). So simply speculating the 2nd shooter is in that dark room (with a night vision device?), after the 3 shots are fired, he or they would quickly need to find the 3 shell casings, which would explain the aggressive swirling around of a flashlight 6 seconds after the shots where fired.
-
The reflection of a SUV lights of which Chris put this issue into the red zone, I would like to challenge as follows. Looking at one of the police body cam videos, we can see a SUV parked with their lights on. However, the lights in the windows are seen in two positions, in the beginning Crooks is frontal to the wall of building 6 and according to other videos there are no SUV parked behind him. In this position we can see lights out of the room. Then Crooks runs all the way behind a tree almost at the level of the parking lot. There again you can see the same lights coming out of the window. The angle of reflection is completely different. This is why I would like to claim that these lights are not reflections, but rather coming from inside the room.
-
I agree with the assumption that that no shots were fired through this window, due to the simple fact that all 8 shots were already fired. This point is obviously bogus.
can you provide us with these studies?
Actually he was between the buildings.
Agreed. But any competent professional (and I would attribute a high level of competence to one who is a professionally trained sniper, as it would presumably require highly advanced military/police training) would probably use a red, green, or blue light to remain concealed, and probably not a white light. This is well-known going back at least to the Vietnam war era, to use red, green, or blue lights for low-light needs.
Scene from the 1980s film Predator, where they are infiltrating via helicopter into a jungle, to illustrate. Every professional knows red, blue, or green lights are much more concealed and would use these in dark spaces for maximum concealability.
Furthermore, if resting in a nest above the drop-ceiling, I’d assume the shell casings would be contained to that area. Or better, a simple device to catch shell casings would be used. A pro would know that he needs to capture shells and would employ a tool to do so, versus hunting around in the dark or with a white light looking for shell casings in a time-sensitive high risk flight exfiltration situation.
COULD this theoretical assassin used a white light for some inexplicable clumsy reason? Sure, I suppose. But I would find that low probability to improbable.
3 Likes
Thank you for your detailed and professional explanations. It is of course very difficult for us to speculate how it looks inside the room, but looking at all the dynamic activity we can see through the window, we could also imagine that it was not simply somebody hiding in the drop ceiling, rather he or they had access to that vent 3 position from inside the room. This would also explain all the lights that are coming out of the room prior to shooting and 7 seconds after the shooting, you see a guy look out the window. Everything to me is extremely suspicious
I think there’s a fair possibility of a assassin in the attic area, over a false drop ceiling, in a sniper nest. In my military career, and professional/personal life I’ve known professional snipers. I know their training regiment. It’s grueling.
That professional would be highly trained to account for all possible light and sound discipline using various tools (likely using a sound suppressor, a tool to catch shell casings, night vision [to your earlier point] or low light colors like red, blue, green in minimal needed, a little mat roll to lay upon, and many other tools - for instance look at the snipers rifle in the window, it’s covered by a net to conceal its profile, these guys are very diligent), and account for all forensics (shell casings, other evidence). It just goes with the decade or decades of extremely high skill learned, in fact required to pass, any sniper school. Being observe is a failing grade. And practiced thereafter; any current snipers would almost surely have a resume including Iraq and/or Afghanistan or other war-torn areas experience where a skill would have been honed to perfection.
I am not convinced these lights are from an assassin being clumsy. The “red-ish” color is more likely the red barn reflection, seen in many windows.
1 Like
( 2 put in handcuffs after Trump’s rally in Asheboro)
Hi Phase 5,
Yes, vertical we are in agreement 
XZ, plane I think we have some small differences. Which XZ reference are you using? I am using the below HD footprint. Please go ahead and download it. Maybe you can give me your reference for XZ plane and we can work it out together?
One thing I think we are both off is the exact position of Vent 3. Counting the 2 foot panels off the roof there are 25 panels, the exact position of vent 3 is therefore 50 feet? It is incredible how you can be fooled with perspective camaras, that is why I don’t take people seriously who make a back trace bullet based on camara views…
Thanks for pointing out the link to the evidence that the audio on Boosted Cop’s dashcam is altered as to the shots.
If the congressional committee decides to take up the question of one or two shooters, evidence that the sounds recordings were altered would be very strong evidence not only of two shooters, but of a cover-up.
This is very much like JFK, but in JFK’s time only a few people had home movie cameras - and they were silent. There was no internet for semi-free exchange of information either. Nothing emerged for about a year until Mark Lane’s “Rush to Judgement”. He had a devil of a time finding someone who would publish it.
1 Like
Hi BigTim,
I see Steward turn around when he hears the audience and I do see the SUV of which Chris is referring too, therefore the aggressive flashlight action could be coming from the SUV as a reflection in the window.
But I have always distinguished two types of lights, one being the flashlight and the other you can see multiple times small round lights coming out of the window before shots are fired. It is much more discrete than the flashlight. This is how I came up with the night vision camera theory, asking you many questions before about this device. It was only after today when I saw the picture of somebody actually wearing one in broad daylight which made me bring up this topic again.
The answer that this guy is wearing it because he might consider working overtime into the night, being a government official, somehow does not pass my smell test. Therefore, I would like to ask you and the community again:
Who is this guy and why does he have a night vision device mounted on his helmet?
I absolutely agree that Trump did NOT stage this assassination attempt. That theory is in my RED zone too. Please do not label that possibility as “your” (as in my) theory. Thanks.
Nor was this simply a “lone shooter” lucking out and getting the “B” security team.
In my view, there were some very serious players who seriously wanted to have the world view Trump’s brains being blown out, on live TV. Trump did not stage that.
I’ve been as clear as I could what my hypothesis was (and I state it again, further down in this post).
For now it seems that there are about four categories of “audience” for my hypothesis:
-
Some are annoyed that I keep repeating my (in their view, I suspect) swill.
-
A few find my hypothesis worth further consideration.
-
Some apparently take a cursory look at my hypothesis and toss it in the discredited “Trump staged it” pile.
-
The remaining 99.999+% of the world is thinking about other stuff.
God bless those in category 4. My thanks to those in category 2. May those in category 3 be blessed with improved reader comprehension powers. May I respond to those in category 1 with amused tolerance and good blessings.
In my view, Trump flipped a very serious assassination operation into a sting, by surprisingly simple, safe, and reliable means. It was a classic “Judo” move, using the opponents’ energy against them.
I really like your post, especially the part with the Judo move.
They wanted the world to see what happens if someone with power turns against the system. This very moment should have been captured with 1/8000 shutter speed, so they can show it in every detail.
They ended up with one of the most iconic and powerful pictures, one that will find entry into the history books. Trump, with the american flag behind, pumping his fist into the sky and shouting “fight, fight, fight” towards the crowd.
What do you think in which of the 4 categories I see myself?
1 Like
Thanks for the good words. I’ll leave yourself, and others, to speak for themselves.
Guys, I don’t know if you feel the same thing I do, but in the past few days, I feel as if we crossed some threshold. We started in near-total bewilderment to having pretty comprehensive knowledge of the whole story.
At this point it seems like we’re scraping the bottom of the bucket because we have so little access to direct information and evidence. But we have identified a bunch of persons of interest.
I can’t stress one point hard enough – in a normal homicide investigation, the detective does not sleuth out every last detail by zooming and enhancing images and such. They do a bit of sleuthing and zooming and enhancing, but then after a while, they know all the persons of interest, and they interview them, and gradually get a sense for whose stories check out and whose stories are in conflict with the evidence.
Our biggest problem is that we can’t do the interviews, and the FBI won’t do them because it doesn’t actually want to solve the case, and I guess all local relatively non-corrupt LEO feel as if they have been waved off the case because the FBI took it over. So NOBODY is going to do the simple, obvious police work that would crack the case.
We’ve done a bunch of zooming and enhancing. I think we’ve done a great job. But that process has its limits, and we’ve pretty much hit them. There are like five people who need to be interviewed, and this case would be over except for the massive repercussions.
My point is, I’m going to turn my attention to making infographics about this stuff. The infographics would be for 1) normal people who don’t have time to follow such a complicated case 2) LEO, especially in PA, who might want to use whatever powers they have 3) government people like Grassley, Higgins, etc 4) lawyers like the ones for the Comperatores. The goal will be to do the damn interviews of the persons of interest, one way or another, either interviewed by detectives, deposed by lawyers, or hounded by reporters, whatever it takes.
I don’t have a complete list yet, but it’s probably like 5 or 6 people who can answer the vast majority of our questions. We should be proud of all our zooming and enhancing but also recognize that it’s diminishing returns at this point. IMO we have to switch gears and apply pressure to the key witnesses.
5 Likes
if these studies exist, it should be easy to send them to us…
if you do not show these studies, we have to deduce they do not.