You can assume anything you want, and draw whatever conclusions logically follow.
But if you assume something lacking conclusive evidence, then you must annotate your conclusions as being inconclusive, with a warning that they depend on unproven hypotheses.
To what/whom are you responding?
(Nevermind my question – I just found the “link to parent post” button 
)
sorry about misnaming the man who said it. it is fbi director christopher wray who questioned whether Trump was injured by a bullet or shrapnel…
fbi deputy director Paul Abbate seems to me like a genuine person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk6qS9mXYM0
in this video he confirms there is no question about what injured Trump, and that is a bullet, not something else.
So if a Deputy FBI Director tells us something, for which we lack actual independent evidence, it must be true?
Maybe on your planet … not on my planet.
… Especially not when that Deputy Directory has a strong motivation to lie … for if it wasn’t a bullet that wounded Trump’s ear, then the lone shooter narrative to which the FBI is wedded goes out the window.
Think again. Why the cruel and lawless persecution of Julian Assange? The answer is general prevention, since a number of upright men (and yes, this includes upright womens) can be found in every state institution.
Take it as a small crack in the single shooter theory and as pivot point to ask Rowe about it in court.
as I mentioned in my earlier messages several times, I do not trust any testimony, any 3-letter agency (extending to 2 and 3 and things starting with UN and similar acronym organizations)
I only trust events and observations that get confirmed from several angles and of which the footage is as close as possible to the event itself…
The existence of honest men does not prove that any given man (especially high level “suits” in a deeply corrupted agency) is honest.
What you recon was the wind speed at the time of the shooting?
if you have read my posts, you should know by now that I substantiate almost everything I say with supporting evidence…
it is not me who makes unfounded allegations and who makes claims that there are, e.g., 3 independent studies that confirm the hypothesis he pushes using all available resources and manipulations…
I am awaiting more than a week now for conclusive evidence for several claims that have been made in this forum, to no avail…
don’t shoot me about not providing evidence or not including disclaimers about assumptions or uncertainties…
Imperial, PA Weather History | Weather Underground shows the data for Butler PA:
the highlighted values are those I use to calculate the speed of sound and in the atmospheric parameters for the ballistic trajectories
this page does not mention the elevation, as that does not change (except after, e.g., an earthquake), but I use 1345 ft above sea level, based on google earth elevation data.
since Gary Melton from Paramount Tactical has shared his GPS-based drone footage measurements, I will also use the elevation that he reports as one of the iteration parameters, but I would not think that this is going to have a very huge impact…
That goes without saying. Pardon my French, but Rowe answered quick and to the point, often more than that and was emotionally in with his cause. The setting allowed for a direct comparison with the behaviour of that FBI person who was questioned in parallel. That does not mean that I’d accept all what Rowe said at face value.
Excellent. Then, since you say your assumptions include:
assume for a second that Trump got injured by a bullet grazed his ear
I trust you won’t mind my asking what evidence you have so far, if any, that conclusively shows that a bullet nicked Trump’s ear.
what evidence do we have about the exact location of whatever item or person that was around that area?
there is no hardcore evidence about any of these things, and that is also not what I am claiming…
I told you my approach and we will see what makes sense and which positions and trajectories can be aligned with the different observations…
I do not really care about whether any of the people’s injuries were real or not because that does not matter in the sense making and trajectories…
I have no reason to doubt that Rowe thought he was speaking the obvious and accepted truth, that a bullet nicked Trump’s ear, and hence spoke with confidence, as you observe.
That doesn’t make it fact. Until we chase down the “chain of custody” of that “bullet nicked Trump’s ear” claim to its primary source and validate that source and evidence, we just dealing in hear-say here.
Only if said injury was caused by some such trajectory.
In other words, will your trajectory calculations include the position of Trump’s ear, at the time of the first shot?
Thx for the winspeed, other source confirms the same value.
Butler, PA Weather History | Weather Underground (wunderground.com)
even then.
meanwhile, I do not make premature allegations and I do not exclude any trajectory or data point…
it would be very unscientific to prematurely eliminate possibilities or options based on bias, preconception or cognitive dissonance.
I have my hypothesis that the shots were fired from the high roof behind crooks, but if the analysis leads to whatever other options, that is fine by me…
the calculations include all positions that are hypothesised about. the approach is the following:
I use every vent, window, door and roof that looks at the rally area, and I calculate the ballistic trajectory (taking into account, i.e., for every, wind speed, muzzle velocity, bullet weight, shooting angle, etc, etc) for each of these locations, and I visualize the shooter’s position and the corresponding trajectory for each of the combinations in a (very big) kml file…
if a trajectory “hits” any of the victims (dead or alive, including hardware), that trajectory is categorized as “interesting”, and then it is up to whoever wants to look at it to draw their conclusions…
if a certain shooter position has more matching hits than another shooter position, that position will be ranked higher than other positions, etc.
this is a very algorithmic and unbiased approach…
so, if one of the trajectories passes around Trump’s head position, that trajectory will be categorized as “interesting” and we will see where we get from there…
Well, I can see one bias - toward all the currently hypothesized “data points”.
Certainly (though you seem to be avoiding the point) Trump’s right ear, while he was looking right to the immigration chart, is one of those currently hypothesized “data points”.
Giving all such hypothesized data points similar weighting in determining which trajectories are more likely than others risks perpetuating a false narrative.
Careful statistical analysis of the likelihood of various scenarios is not “unbiased” and therefore “better” in someway because it ignores the various biases, weights and error ranges that might be properly assigned to the input data.
Rather such analysis is less reliable, for ignoring such biases, weights and error ranges.
I try to avoid opinion based premature elimination of whatever options.
I really have no idea what the outcome will be.
if you do not like to consider that data point, that is fine.
it is the user who determines what weight is given to which combination, he…
I really do not see your point that I would be biased in favour or against this or that combination or data point…
If your intended presentation will allow me to discern with reasonable ease which results depended on the assumption that a bullet nicked Trump’s ear, and which results do not so depend, that could be useful, in my view, yes.
And I’m not saying you’re biased. I’m saying your method, as I currently understand it, risks producing biased results, as a consequence of incorrectly assuming that:
If the inputs are already biased, as a result of being polluted by incorrect data resulting from a false (albeit quite popular) narrative, then the results of your method will be similarly polluted.
