I admit I haven't yet read your recent posts regarding this. I have kept up with other accounts covering this though.
To me it was clear early on that the kid on the roof was the patsy. The first things they told us about him turned out to be untrue. And there were more cell phone vids that came out, including other people who were there that say they saw someone on the water tower. The roof kid was not the one who was to take the "kill shots".
Now there is this forensic audio evidence that seems to show there were three shooters. This was clearly a planned op, a deep state op to take out the most powerful leader in the world, who the deep state globalists knew was a shoe-in to become President again.
They now say Crooks had two phones, with encryption, and he was communicating with someone in another country.
Then there was that huge bet on the DJT stock shorting it the day before. That shows foreknowledge by someone. The Soros's had offered money to assassinate Trump, and Biden had indirectly, and almost directly, called for it also. The Dems had radicalized the people through their lies and propaganda media.
We know that the FBI cannot be trusted. We cannot believe anything they tell us about any aspect of this. They may have been in on it like they have with many other shootings, and the fake Whitmer kidnapping. There must be a FULL AND COMPLETE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.
You need to read the authors other posts on this. There is no line of sight from the water tower. The teletron blocks it.
The encrypted accounts overseas is meaningless. I too have VPN accounts and they likely use overseas servers. If you use a VPN, who may have no different from what it is reported that the shooter used.
Having two phones is also not unusual. School girls in Japan often have 2 or more phones. My wife has two, one for work and one for private use.
That does not mean these were not used in nefarious ways, but these facts, if proven true, in and of themselves are nothing out of the ordinary.
We need to stop jumping to conclusions at every bit of information and considered what they actually mean first.
It seems there is some degree of evil in almost every fallen man. But competent people with evil intent accomplish more and bigger things than incompetent people do.
The very opposite: Trump stronger than ever, humbled and on fire, his followers united behind him, and the nation realizing that some won't stop at anything to get rid of him.
Sin darkens the intellect, so evil generally makes people stupid. By stupid, I mean that they don't understand what is objectively good. Thus, some people think it's good to defend a woman's "right" to murder the baby in her womb.
Still, I agree that there are intellectually gifted malicious people out there, and they may be fewer in number, but they are capable of doing many bad things. I don't see a logical basis for assuming the truth of this "Hanson's Razor."
It is also the case that the prince of this world is Satan, and those who gravely sin place themselves under his authority unless and until they repent. (If you still believe that our DNA, which is functional read forwards, backwards, and every 3rd "letter," evolved randomly from a magic puddle of goo, this line of thought will be alien to you.) Satan and the other evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls and the destruction of creation have more influence on people and on the course of events than I think most people realize.
For these reasons, I think this "Hanson's Razor" that is being bandied about so often these days is a foolish, naive, and dangerous error.
Are you a Catholic? You seem to have (sub)consciously quoted from the St Michael's prayer. ;)
Satan and sin are a reality, I believe that.
Most people are not the smartest, and most things are not done out of evil or malicious thoughts, simply ignorance or stupidity.
I think Hanson's Razor is about not jumping to conclusions, and giving people the benefit of the doubt. That being said, Hanson does not mean that NOTHING is malicious, either.
I’m all in favor of giving people the benefit of the doubt. However, in assessing something like the assassination attempt, I don’t see any reason to presume against evil, and thus no reason to start with Hanson’s Razor. I don’t see conspiracies everywhere, but I also don’t see the logical or empirical reason to presume stupidity.
If you discount info., despite accurate info.- because your Cognitive dissonance can’t handle it- you’re doing yourself a disservice by spouting conclusions without including facts!
Mmm I suppose it’s reasonable to discount HR for a UFO thing, but I think some people have so much motivated reasoning (desire for UFOs to be true), that their perception can be warped when it comes to that topic, yet they can have decent judgement on other topics. I don’t follow HR, I am just pointing out that UFOs are a special topic that people can get fanatical about.
I once had an amazing university professor. He was Cambridge educated, very posh accent, always wore a suit and was immaculate etc. He was mainly an English and Chinese professor, but he also taught a foundation unit called Structure, Thought, and Reality. In this unit he was basically Mulder from the X-Files. He looked at how you can’t trust the media or History (because it’s His-story), but he also looked at metaphysics, gender, race, Reincarnation, mediumship, and UFOs. There was meant to be one week only on UFOs but he would try and squeeze extra bits into other weeks all the time. Turned out he used to be in MI5 so he really was a British Mulder!
Past experiences don’t cancel out new facts- whatever the source! You are creating biased conclusions before the starting gate has been released! Those actions only remove your credibility and integrity with the un-willingness to look at info. from all angles! You can’t comment on blue marbles when blue marbles, which have unique characteristics, are discounted from your conclusions, based upon looking at your past experience with yellow marbles!
Actually you did, you discounted an entire informational look at the shooting, stating you weren’t going to look at it- you made up your biased mind that the info being presented was worthless- in a nutshell, that’s drawing a conclusion about facts, not looks at!
Sound analysis is far from conclusive with the sound capturing gear used. The only way to have a conclusive finding would be for all the recording to have been with the same microphones and the same settings for the pick ups, providing for the possibility of some variation in settings of the mics during to the differences of the environments of each mic. But even then, findings would have to be collaborated with other findings.
In determining the height of the stage Trump was on, two views were given, one from T’s left that you judges to indicate a height of around 5 feet, and one from Trump’s right which we can believe to be 4 feet. Was the ground level? It could easily be the case that due to an incline in the ground that one side was higher than the other while the stage is level.
Different locations, different gear, no proper analysis of the sound, etc. It is very rough material to work with like this, which is why I was a bit skeptical going in.
On the height:: I did not think of an incline in the ground, as the ground seems generally level (look at the stage behind Trump: is level, too, not drooping down to the right), and it is a parade ground/fair ground. I expect those to be level. The level of the path right in front of the buildings also indicates level ground. I don't think that is the answer, simply the way perspective with pictures can really mess with you.
True, different perspectives change appearances. Still, ground can be flat without being level, though that may not be the case here. But if it is, it may indicate that your earlier hypothesis of the first round getting T and the railing is correct. Not sure how we could rule in or rule out an incline or in some way define the elevation of tT’s ear when hit.
Let me add, that of the several accounts I have read thus far, yours seem to be the most plausible, at least to me.
“There IS a 6th shot after the rapid 5 [right after the second volley], well before the last shot, 10 seconds later. This is not yet accounted for, by no one. Official messages only talk about 1 shot, the kill shot, by the sniper team. Nothing about a missed (?) shot. … Did the sniper teams fire twice? Once right after the second volley, and then again, 10 seconds later? Did that first shot hit Crooks, or get really close, causing him to roll away, coming into view, and then get hit again?”
. . .
There have been news reports that two shots were taken at Crooks by the sniper teams. The first (right after the second volley) by the police sniper team and the last kill shot by the Secret Service south sniper team.
Perhaps the ESU officer's shot wounded Crooks who then stopped firing (Or maybe “caused a reaction” like rolling away). Otherwise, why would the ESU sniper stop shooting at Crooks for 10 seconds and allow him to potentially continue shooting?
Perhaps Crooks then moved upward and/or to his right, and moved out of the concealment provided by a tree? (a bystander who was filming Crooks on the roof, said @ 00:20 “He's turning this way!” about 3 seconds before the final shot https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/us/video/trump-rally-shooter-stopped-digvid ) You can clearly hear that the 6th & 7th shots sound different from each other and from Crooks's 8 shots. Much better audio than that used by Martenson.
Is there an overhead schematic or photo that shows where the six wounded people were when hit? By six, I mean Corey, the two men seriously wounded, but alive, Congressman Ronnie Jackson’s nephew, and the two LEOs hit by shrapnel.
Good analysis- new video out today- idk the guy’s name, but he shows the financial shenanigans- the Busch/Cheney/Meta/Soros Co- Austin Private Wealth LLC- on the DAY OF the shooting was on the short sell board BEFORE the shooting, showing to short sell 12 Million shares, but immediately AFTER the shooting, someone ( brokerage firm) took it off the board!!! Video also shows Asst. Director of FBI- female, signaling and taking pics behind Trump- while shooting is happening- she’s sort of ducking right before the hit, she’s in very close proximity to Trump and is not upset at all when shooting happens, unlike the rest of the people there.
It is hard for me to think this was planned by the government. However, with our activist FBI and other government agencies, I do find it very plausible that government intelligence may have known about Crooks (and possible company) plan in advance and intentionally designed the incompetence (Jill Biden’s event announced one week prior) and also informed certain members of the media of this.
I’m sorry, maybe I’m being thick, but I don’t see how you refuted the notion that the first three shots and the next rapid volley of shots were different guns. The time between the microphone picking up the bullet whizzing by and the crack of the actual explosion from the gun were clearly different lengths of time (indicating an origin a different distance away). Your video of the man shooting at a range proves nothing because that camera is right next to the gun in question.
No, the time between the crack and pop of the first 3 was just about the same as the next 5. Martenson's conclusion about shot 3 and 5 from the volley are inconclusive, based on a defective recording. His recording from the Fox4 video audio shows the same time between crack and pop in the 5 shot volley.
The video of the man at the range proves everything: it is not about the distance and thus the difference in crack and pop, but about the difference slow firing and rapid fire makes on our SOUND PERCEPTION. I gave that example to refute something very different..
Thanks, I did say maybe I’m being thick (that’s a British saying for slow/stupid). I understand your video demo now. Do you think an inexperienced gunman could have shot so many in rapid succession and still been close to accurate?
So maybe our perception means that we can’t assume it was two shooters, but there’s also the possibility expert who supposedly analysed it too. Of course, that was put on CNN, so how much we can trust that I don’t know lol
My friend I was exposed to you through Reading Epic Threads with Patrick reading your work. You are an amazing researcher and I use your articles to help others not to jump to narrative conclusions. If I find any help I will post it to you.
When a sound wave consisting of higher and lower frequencies hits a solid flat surface, like the wall of a building for instance, the lower frequency sounds will tend to penetrate that surface while the higher frequency sounds will reflect off of it. This will tend to result in echoes that are higher pitched, brighter and more trebly than the original sound wave.
I think what may have happened in the recording made on a rallygoer's cell phone is that the rallygoer was initially standing in a place where structures near him were acting as a sound wave barrier for the first three rifle reports, causing them to sound muffled. By the time the next salvo of shots is fired, the rallygoer has moved to a position where he's able to hear the sound of the muzzle blasts more clearly and he's standing in a good position to hear those muzzle blasts echoing off the wall of the AGR building.
By the way, in every recording I've listened to, I find that there were three shots, followed by a pause, followed by four shots in quick succession. I believe these were fired by Crooks. All seven of these shots can be heard from the podium microphone first as the sonic boom cracks of bullets, followed by rifle reports. Roughly a half second after the 7th rifle report, there are two bangs, the second following 0.09 seconds after the first. It's not entirely clear to me what these two bangs are. It's possible that the first could be the sonic boom of a bullet, but the two bangs could also be the reports of a gun or guns. In either case, the gun or guns that made these bangs would be different from the one that fired the first seven shots. It's also possible these banging sounds could have been the bursting of the hydraulic line on the fork lift, or the bang of a gun or the lift's hydraulic line followed by an echo, or something else entirely. Whatever the case may be, roughly ten seconds later, another bang that is clearly the sonic boom of a bullet can be heard. It was clearly not fired by the gun that fired the first seven shots and the sonic boom of the bullet is not followed by the report of a rifle, suggesting whatever gun produced it had a suppressor attached to it.
I admit I haven't yet read your recent posts regarding this. I have kept up with other accounts covering this though.
To me it was clear early on that the kid on the roof was the patsy. The first things they told us about him turned out to be untrue. And there were more cell phone vids that came out, including other people who were there that say they saw someone on the water tower. The roof kid was not the one who was to take the "kill shots".
Now there is this forensic audio evidence that seems to show there were three shooters. This was clearly a planned op, a deep state op to take out the most powerful leader in the world, who the deep state globalists knew was a shoe-in to become President again.
They now say Crooks had two phones, with encryption, and he was communicating with someone in another country.
Then there was that huge bet on the DJT stock shorting it the day before. That shows foreknowledge by someone. The Soros's had offered money to assassinate Trump, and Biden had indirectly, and almost directly, called for it also. The Dems had radicalized the people through their lies and propaganda media.
We know that the FBI cannot be trusted. We cannot believe anything they tell us about any aspect of this. They may have been in on it like they have with many other shootings, and the fake Whitmer kidnapping. There must be a FULL AND COMPLETE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.
You need to read the authors other posts on this. There is no line of sight from the water tower. The teletron blocks it.
The encrypted accounts overseas is meaningless. I too have VPN accounts and they likely use overseas servers. If you use a VPN, who may have no different from what it is reported that the shooter used.
Having two phones is also not unusual. School girls in Japan often have 2 or more phones. My wife has two, one for work and one for private use.
That does not mean these were not used in nefarious ways, but these facts, if proven true, in and of themselves are nothing out of the ordinary.
We need to stop jumping to conclusions at every bit of information and considered what they actually mean first.
What is the basis for trusting the so-called “Hanson’s Razor?” The inherent goodness of man?
How many truly evil people do you know? Now compare that with how many incompetent people who have encountered.
It seems there is some degree of evil in almost every fallen man. But competent people with evil intent accomplish more and bigger things than incompetent people do.
What was accomplished by the failed hit on T?
The very opposite: Trump stronger than ever, humbled and on fire, his followers united behind him, and the nation realizing that some won't stop at anything to get rid of him.
Yep.
People are generally rather stupid.
To be truly malicious and evil, you have to be very smart, and foresee a lot, even hidden things.
Sin darkens the intellect, so evil generally makes people stupid. By stupid, I mean that they don't understand what is objectively good. Thus, some people think it's good to defend a woman's "right" to murder the baby in her womb.
Still, I agree that there are intellectually gifted malicious people out there, and they may be fewer in number, but they are capable of doing many bad things. I don't see a logical basis for assuming the truth of this "Hanson's Razor."
It is also the case that the prince of this world is Satan, and those who gravely sin place themselves under his authority unless and until they repent. (If you still believe that our DNA, which is functional read forwards, backwards, and every 3rd "letter," evolved randomly from a magic puddle of goo, this line of thought will be alien to you.) Satan and the other evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls and the destruction of creation have more influence on people and on the course of events than I think most people realize.
For these reasons, I think this "Hanson's Razor" that is being bandied about so often these days is a foolish, naive, and dangerous error.
Are you a Catholic? You seem to have (sub)consciously quoted from the St Michael's prayer. ;)
Satan and sin are a reality, I believe that.
Most people are not the smartest, and most things are not done out of evil or malicious thoughts, simply ignorance or stupidity.
I think Hanson's Razor is about not jumping to conclusions, and giving people the benefit of the doubt. That being said, Hanson does not mean that NOTHING is malicious, either.
Yes, I’m Catholic; thank God.
I’m all in favor of giving people the benefit of the doubt. However, in assessing something like the assassination attempt, I don’t see any reason to presume against evil, and thus no reason to start with Hanson’s Razor. I don’t see conspiracies everywhere, but I also don’t see the logical or empirical reason to presume stupidity.
CNN and Health Ranger? Please, don't waste the bandwidth. Last week HR was touting UFO's abducting MH370!
DOn't shoot the messenger. I report what Dr. Martenson used.
If you discount info., despite accurate info.- because your Cognitive dissonance can’t handle it- you’re doing yourself a disservice by spouting conclusions without including facts!
Thanks Karen, but I "spouted" NO "conclusions". I discounted two sources based on previous experience.
You spouted your conclusions based only in facts you wanted to look at- that’s not a fact based conclusion!
Mmm I suppose it’s reasonable to discount HR for a UFO thing, but I think some people have so much motivated reasoning (desire for UFOs to be true), that their perception can be warped when it comes to that topic, yet they can have decent judgement on other topics. I don’t follow HR, I am just pointing out that UFOs are a special topic that people can get fanatical about.
I once had an amazing university professor. He was Cambridge educated, very posh accent, always wore a suit and was immaculate etc. He was mainly an English and Chinese professor, but he also taught a foundation unit called Structure, Thought, and Reality. In this unit he was basically Mulder from the X-Files. He looked at how you can’t trust the media or History (because it’s His-story), but he also looked at metaphysics, gender, race, Reincarnation, mediumship, and UFOs. There was meant to be one week only on UFOs but he would try and squeeze extra bits into other weeks all the time. Turned out he used to be in MI5 so he really was a British Mulder!
Past experiences don’t cancel out new facts- whatever the source! You are creating biased conclusions before the starting gate has been released! Those actions only remove your credibility and integrity with the un-willingness to look at info. from all angles! You can’t comment on blue marbles when blue marbles, which have unique characteristics, are discounted from your conclusions, based upon looking at your past experience with yellow marbles!
Actually you did, you discounted an entire informational look at the shooting, stating you weren’t going to look at it- you made up your biased mind that the info being presented was worthless- in a nutshell, that’s drawing a conclusion about facts, not looks at!
Two points, if I may.
Sound analysis is far from conclusive with the sound capturing gear used. The only way to have a conclusive finding would be for all the recording to have been with the same microphones and the same settings for the pick ups, providing for the possibility of some variation in settings of the mics during to the differences of the environments of each mic. But even then, findings would have to be collaborated with other findings.
In determining the height of the stage Trump was on, two views were given, one from T’s left that you judges to indicate a height of around 5 feet, and one from Trump’s right which we can believe to be 4 feet. Was the ground level? It could easily be the case that due to an incline in the ground that one side was higher than the other while the stage is level.
Yes, I am very well aware of the sound issues.
Different locations, different gear, no proper analysis of the sound, etc. It is very rough material to work with like this, which is why I was a bit skeptical going in.
On the height:: I did not think of an incline in the ground, as the ground seems generally level (look at the stage behind Trump: is level, too, not drooping down to the right), and it is a parade ground/fair ground. I expect those to be level. The level of the path right in front of the buildings also indicates level ground. I don't think that is the answer, simply the way perspective with pictures can really mess with you.
True, different perspectives change appearances. Still, ground can be flat without being level, though that may not be the case here. But if it is, it may indicate that your earlier hypothesis of the first round getting T and the railing is correct. Not sure how we could rule in or rule out an incline or in some way define the elevation of tT’s ear when hit.
Let me add, that of the several accounts I have read thus far, yours seem to be the most plausible, at least to me.
“There IS a 6th shot after the rapid 5 [right after the second volley], well before the last shot, 10 seconds later. This is not yet accounted for, by no one. Official messages only talk about 1 shot, the kill shot, by the sniper team. Nothing about a missed (?) shot. … Did the sniper teams fire twice? Once right after the second volley, and then again, 10 seconds later? Did that first shot hit Crooks, or get really close, causing him to roll away, coming into view, and then get hit again?”
. . .
There have been news reports that two shots were taken at Crooks by the sniper teams. The first (right after the second volley) by the police sniper team and the last kill shot by the Secret Service south sniper team.
Local news reported that "County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said a Beaver County Emergency Services Unit officer fired a shot that "appeared to cause a reaction from Crooks" https://www.wtae.com/article/trump-rally-shooting-investigation-homeland-security-crooks/61629040
Those ESU officers were located in the 2nd floor of the building behind Crooks (see diagram in link). https://www.eugyppius.com/p/cock-ups-conspiracies-and-the-failed?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=268621&post_id=146745801&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=105v9&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Perhaps the ESU officer's shot wounded Crooks who then stopped firing (Or maybe “caused a reaction” like rolling away). Otherwise, why would the ESU sniper stop shooting at Crooks for 10 seconds and allow him to potentially continue shooting?
Perhaps Crooks then moved upward and/or to his right, and moved out of the concealment provided by a tree? (a bystander who was filming Crooks on the roof, said @ 00:20 “He's turning this way!” about 3 seconds before the final shot https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/us/video/trump-rally-shooter-stopped-digvid ) You can clearly hear that the 6th & 7th shots sound different from each other and from Crooks's 8 shots. Much better audio than that used by Martenson.
Once Crooks became visible to the Secret Service south sniper team they fired the final, fatal shot ten seconds later. (see Dan Bongino Show @11:00 https://rumble.com/v57ft7n-the-troubling-truth-is-starting-to-emerge-ep.-2289-07182024.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email )
'Perhaps Crooks then moved upward and/or to his right, and moved out of the concealment provided by a tree?'
This is exactly what arngrimr said in an earlier article.
I just saw that Seth Keshel posted a link to this Substack on his Truth Social. I'm impressed he reads ArngrimR.
So am I! ;)
'I saw reports come in today about an analysis performed by Chris Martenson...'
Is this the same person you're referencing the rest of the article by a different name? For example 'Masterson then references the Deep State...'
Oi, oversight on my part. Yes, same person. I will edit, and correct. Thank you!
Thanks, it was kind of confusing what you were referring to.
Is there an overhead schematic or photo that shows where the six wounded people were when hit? By six, I mean Corey, the two men seriously wounded, but alive, Congressman Ronnie Jackson’s nephew, and the two LEOs hit by shrapnel.
Working on it.
Good analysis- new video out today- idk the guy’s name, but he shows the financial shenanigans- the Busch/Cheney/Meta/Soros Co- Austin Private Wealth LLC- on the DAY OF the shooting was on the short sell board BEFORE the shooting, showing to short sell 12 Million shares, but immediately AFTER the shooting, someone ( brokerage firm) took it off the board!!! Video also shows Asst. Director of FBI- female, signaling and taking pics behind Trump- while shooting is happening- she’s sort of ducking right before the hit, she’s in very close proximity to Trump and is not upset at all when shooting happens, unlike the rest of the people there.
It is hard for me to think this was planned by the government. However, with our activist FBI and other government agencies, I do find it very plausible that government intelligence may have known about Crooks (and possible company) plan in advance and intentionally designed the incompetence (Jill Biden’s event announced one week prior) and also informed certain members of the media of this.
I’m sorry, maybe I’m being thick, but I don’t see how you refuted the notion that the first three shots and the next rapid volley of shots were different guns. The time between the microphone picking up the bullet whizzing by and the crack of the actual explosion from the gun were clearly different lengths of time (indicating an origin a different distance away). Your video of the man shooting at a range proves nothing because that camera is right next to the gun in question.
No, the time between the crack and pop of the first 3 was just about the same as the next 5. Martenson's conclusion about shot 3 and 5 from the volley are inconclusive, based on a defective recording. His recording from the Fox4 video audio shows the same time between crack and pop in the 5 shot volley.
The video of the man at the range proves everything: it is not about the distance and thus the difference in crack and pop, but about the difference slow firing and rapid fire makes on our SOUND PERCEPTION. I gave that example to refute something very different..
Look again.
Thanks, I did say maybe I’m being thick (that’s a British saying for slow/stupid). I understand your video demo now. Do you think an inexperienced gunman could have shot so many in rapid succession and still been close to accurate?
So maybe our perception means that we can’t assume it was two shooters, but there’s also the possibility expert who supposedly analysed it too. Of course, that was put on CNN, so how much we can trust that I don’t know lol
My friend I was exposed to you through Reading Epic Threads with Patrick reading your work. You are an amazing researcher and I use your articles to help others not to jump to narrative conclusions. If I find any help I will post it to you.
When a sound wave consisting of higher and lower frequencies hits a solid flat surface, like the wall of a building for instance, the lower frequency sounds will tend to penetrate that surface while the higher frequency sounds will reflect off of it. This will tend to result in echoes that are higher pitched, brighter and more trebly than the original sound wave.
I think what may have happened in the recording made on a rallygoer's cell phone is that the rallygoer was initially standing in a place where structures near him were acting as a sound wave barrier for the first three rifle reports, causing them to sound muffled. By the time the next salvo of shots is fired, the rallygoer has moved to a position where he's able to hear the sound of the muzzle blasts more clearly and he's standing in a good position to hear those muzzle blasts echoing off the wall of the AGR building.
By the way, in every recording I've listened to, I find that there were three shots, followed by a pause, followed by four shots in quick succession. I believe these were fired by Crooks. All seven of these shots can be heard from the podium microphone first as the sonic boom cracks of bullets, followed by rifle reports. Roughly a half second after the 7th rifle report, there are two bangs, the second following 0.09 seconds after the first. It's not entirely clear to me what these two bangs are. It's possible that the first could be the sonic boom of a bullet, but the two bangs could also be the reports of a gun or guns. In either case, the gun or guns that made these bangs would be different from the one that fired the first seven shots. It's also possible these banging sounds could have been the bursting of the hydraulic line on the fork lift, or the bang of a gun or the lift's hydraulic line followed by an echo, or something else entirely. Whatever the case may be, roughly ten seconds later, another bang that is clearly the sonic boom of a bullet can be heard. It was clearly not fired by the gun that fired the first seven shots and the sonic boom of the bullet is not followed by the report of a rifle, suggesting whatever gun produced it had a suppressor attached to it.