Failed Trump Assassination Attempt

[Cosmos]

In the first image, the guy is standing on the porch over the door, which looks to be 30-40cm lower than the roof.

The other two images are similar. This is the 3rd, and you can see all of the big screen and some below it. Seems to me that Trump's head would be somewhere in the region of the blue arrow tip below. In any case, there's no way to tell from those images and the angle they are at. If Crooks could see Trump, then I don't see why someone at the same height 30meters back could not do so also, unless there was a significant downward angle.View attachment 99307

The video records the guy climbing up that roof, so we have different heights above the roof looking toward the rally. In the first picture the guys camera is at a height above that roof that is IMO an approximate height you would have if you are laying down with your gun. The lowest point of Trumps rally screen is far below that line of sight (Crooks building is in the way). Therefore impossible to shoot at Trump from this position. In the second picture the police guy is about halfway between upright and laying down on the roof. The lowest point of Trumps rally screen is still far below the line of sight (Crooks building is in the way). Therefore impossible to shoot at Trump from this position. In the third picture the police guy is standing upright on that roof. Only then I can see a possibility that a bullet was shot at Trumps head from there. But even at this upright position it could be that Trumps head is still quite below line of sight. So yes, if that second shooter stood upright on that roof while delivering that shot on Trumps head, I think it MIGHT be possible. But would he stand upright there, delivering the shot/-s on Trumps head? I can see a number of problems with that idea.

 

[Joe]

I think you're drawing too many hard and fast conclusions from photographs and videos that cannot possibly confirm whether or not it was possible to see something 150meters from that position. Notice that no one here is saying anything definitively unless it is reasonably possible to do so.

 

[Niall]

The video records the guy climbing up that roof, so we have different heights above the roof looking toward the rally. In the first picture the guys camera is at a height above that roof that is IMO an approximate height you would have if you are laying down with your gun. The lowest point of Trumps rally screen is far below that line of sight (Crooks building is in the way). Therefore impossible to shoot at Trump from this position.

Nein!

You have made this impossible in your head because you think the perspective you saw from the SWAT officer's body-cam is THE TRUE PICTURE. It's not. It's angled, for one, it's moving, and we can't see where Trump would have been to know with any certainty that a sniper couldn't target his head at the podium. You're ruling out a possibility as "impossible" based on too little evidence. IF it were clear that a shot towards the stage from that roof behind Crooks is impossible, we would agree with you. But it's not clear, so we keep it open as a possibility.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Right, I know that, and we don't know if it was horizontal or not, although others have analyzed the area and claim that it is a horizontal line. My only point is that a person standing 30meters behind another person on the same line and at the same height can see the same thing the person in front of him can see as long as there is no significant drop off to the object.

I checked a distant image from Google Maps, and it looks like his shot probably would've been very close to level, maybe only a degree or 2 down.

Distant pic of Trump for reference. His head would probably be a foot or two below the level of the horizontal white trim on the barn.

 

[Niall]

Although we're now discussing snipers on the rooftop somewhere behind Crooks, this still from earlier footage of Crooks - which was taken by someone in the stand behind Trump at around 5:15pm - shows him walk along the front of AGR building #6 then stop almost outside the very ground-floor window we thought odd (the first one to the right of the vents). Note that a hypothetical shot fired from within one of those ground-floor rooms - if done from an elevated position within the room - would in fact clear the top of the chain-link fence (which you see here run in front of Crooks' head).



Pittsburgh news report about this footage

 

[Revolucionar]

Scratch the bolded part above. Now, I'm pretty much certain that the new proposed position of the second shooter on the roof behind Crooks building can't shoot on Trump while laying down or being situated quite higher than laying down. As I suspected, only when standing up pretty much straight on top of that roof, you might have a chance to have a line of sight to Trumps head. But even that isn't certain either. See below, where I've done the above sequence again with better image quality. Notice one of the two screens of the Trump rally (the one on that side, where that guy was killed by a headshot). I think we can clearly see that you can not shoot from there, unless, maybe, if you stand upright (which is unlikely for several reasons):

View attachment 99292


View attachment 99293
View attachment 99294

On top of that, in that scenario, Crooks would have probably further obscured the line of sights of that proposed second shooter.

Edit: spelling

Nein!

You have made this impossible in your head because you think the perspective you saw from the SWAT officer's body-cam is THE TRUE PICTURE. It's not. It's angled, for one, it's moving, and we can't see where Trump would have been to know with any certainty that we couldn't see his head at the podium.

I don't know man. I'm leaning towards Comsos' side here. Considering those two pictures above, I don't see how you could sight Trump's head from that roof unless you were standing up.

Btw, what's the consensus number of shots?

I finally got back to my audio rig and started looking into the recordings.

I count 11 shots. Shot #6 and #11 are only sonic cracks, no muzzle blast, while shots #8,9,10 are just muzzle blast, no sonic crack.

Also, there seems to be varying degrees of duration between sonic crack and muzzle blast which may indicate different distances to mic. So far, I've just been looking at the news feed video that uses Trump's mic, because that's static and most consistent as a benchmark. Will report with more findings tomorrow, hopefully.

 

[Cosmos]

I think you're drawing too many hard and fast conclusions from photographs and videos that cannot possibly confirm whether or not it was possible to see something 150meters from that position. Notice that no one here is saying anything definitively unless it is reasonably possible to do so.

Well, the problem is that, in this specific case, I‘m reasonably certain that you could only shoot at Trumps head from there if you stand more or less upright on that roof part. That’s all I’m saying. Therefore doing it at any lower body position seems impossible to me. IMO the rally screen (or more specifically, how much of it can be seen) is something that makes this very unlikely (that it was shot from there laying down or halfway standing). Trumps head was well below the lowest part of that screen. We know that, I think? Even if you assume sloping or rising grounds to or from the rally. IMO it still could be that what is suggested might be possible while laying down or even half upright, when the second shooter would be quite a bit closer to Crooks than the suggested idea.

Be it as it may, I rest my case since I‘m obviously not able to understand what you guys are trying to say at the moment.

 

[Evan]

For me, it's those side windows from the second story building that lead directly onto the roof of building #3 behind building #6 that are the most interesting. For some reason I no longer have access today to Google maps like I have for the past few weeks. I can't check streetview to see if those windows are seen from the parking lot.

Here’s a couple of shots from Google Maps, one from the staff lot behind the two story building, and one from the front parking lot of the whole complex. I can move the length of them to get different angles.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Although we're now discussing snipers on the rooftop somewhere behind Crooks, this still from earlier footage of Crooks - which was taken by someone in the stand behind Trump at around 5:15pm - shows him walk along the front of AGR building #6 then stop almost outside the very ground-floor window we thought odd (the first one to the right of the vents). Note that a hypothetical shot fired from within one of those ground-floor rooms - if done from an elevated position in the room - would in fact clear the top of the chain-link fence.

View attachment 99311

Pittsburgh news report about this footage

Looks like this video is shot by someone standing near the top of the center stands (maybe even the right stands, if it's zoomed in - can't tell), so a pretty elevated position. Those people's heads that are in the frame are standing in the top of the left stands, and you can see the tops of the eagles on the flagpoles. The camera is looking down at them. And it looks like Trump's head would've been about a foot lower than those eagles. So at that level, maybe it was possible. Hard to tell for sure without lots of trigonometry!

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Here’s a couple of shots from Google Maps, one from the staff lot behind the two story building, and one from the front parking lot of the whole complex. I can move the length of them to get different angles.
View attachment 99317

That middle building looks like it's slightly shorter than the two to either side of it, with a lower grade.

Here's drone footage moving from the barns towards AGR. Could help in getting an idea of the angles involved:

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I don't know man. I'm leaning towards Comsos' side here. Considering those two pictures above, I don't see how you could sight Trump's head from that roof unless you were standing up.

Btw, what's the consensus number of shots?

I finally got back to my audio rig and started looking into the recordings.

I count 11 shots. Shot #6 and #11 are only sonic cracks, no muzzle blast, while shots #8,9,10 are just muzzle blast, no sonic crack.

10 or 11. An 11th shot is inaudible in a lot of recordings, so it's hard to know if it is just an echo. I haven't looked too closely at that one though.

Also, there seems to be varying degrees of duration between sonic crack and muzzle blast which may indicate different distances to mic. So far, I've just been looking at the news feed video that uses Trump's mic, because that's static and most consistent as a benchmark. Will report with more findings tomorrow, hopefully.

I think you're mixing up the sonic cracks and muzzle blasts on some of these. Shot six is missing a sonic shockwave because that's probably the shot that hit Comperatore before it could pass the microphone. Some of the muzzle blasts are missing because of the automatic gain reduction after some of the sonic cracks. I think both the presumed countersniper shots (9 and 10) are missing cracks because the the trajectories were too far away from the mic and out of the Mach angle of the shockwave.

Martenson did a pretty good analysis of this aspect, even if I don't think he's great in other areas:

 

[Revolucionar]

Some of the muzzle blasts are missing because of the automatic gain reduction after some of the sonic cracks.

I'm not seeing any evidence of this in the recording from Trump's mic. Shot 6 simply doesn't have a muzzle blast. Gain reduction doesn't work like that.

I think both the presumed countersniper shots (9 and 10) are missing cracks because the the trajectories were too far away from the mic and out of the Mach angle of the shockwave.

I'm counting 11 shots, the 11th being without the muzzle blast, indicating long distance and/silencer. 8, 9 and 10 have no sonic crack so their trajectories must be away from the mic, but they also sound like automatic gunfire in very quick succession, not like what I would expect a sniper to sound like.

Martenson did a pretty good analysis of this aspect, even if I don't think he's great in other areas:

I'll look at this and report back.