Guideline for assessing theories

Reconciling ALL the facts

There are a plethora of voices doing research into the Trump shooting in Butler, PA. How can we keep track of the forest through all the trees? How can we assess those theories, not being experts ourselves? Not having specialized equipment or knowledge? Not having direct access?

Here is a little chart to help.

Several facts about the shooting are beyond discussion, and others need a reasonable explanation that makes actual sense (but are often not considered or accounted for). We tend to focus on a problem, and the ‘solution’ for that problem, but in complex situations like this we need to make sure that our solution doesn’t just answer the problem presented, but ALL the relevant hard facts that cannot be tweaked or changed, and that are not open for interpretation.

In the below chart, I identified 5 main facts that NEED to be incorporated, as is (in green fields). The video evidence of those events is such that it cannot be disputed. They bear direct relevance of the shooting, and need to be given a proper place in any theory or explanation about what happened that day.

Next are a set of circumstances that need to be explained well, but are not strict facts, but rather ‘problems’ that need a logical, reasonable or at least plausible answer.

Different theories can either fully explain √ (green), partially explain/need to introduce plausible options √ (orange), and cannot adequately explain √ (red).

First round hits Trump AND rail left bleacher

For this, we need to look at 2 videos. The first one is this:

@tmz⚠️WARNING: GRAPHIC⚠️ TMZ has obtained a new angle of the shooting at the #DonaldTrump rally this weekend -- and you can see how close some people were to getting hit by bullets.

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

It shows, very clearly, the puff of smoke/dust on the railing. Listening to Trump’s speech, this matches up perfectly with the moment he gets hit.

 Next, Trump getting hit:

At the first shot, you can see his right shoulder suddenly move upward. By the second shot, his right arm is at his ear. By the third shot, he starts to duck. It’s very clear he got hit by the first bullet. His hands starts moving up before the second shot is fired.

And that he did see blood, a good video shows that (credit video MJTruthUltra):

So, any reconstruction of the timeline needs to account for the first shot hitting both Trump and the corner of the bleacher railing.

Second volley hits bystanders in left AND right bleacher

Looking at this great wide angle view of all 3 the bleachers and Trump on the podium during the shooting, we can see how people in the left AND the right bleacher get hit.

Oliver Alexander made a great compilation showing when each of the 3 spectators were hit.

First, David Dutch. He is on the top of the left hand bleacher, right next to where the first shot hits the railing. Dutch seems to turn suddenly, surprised, but only when the second shot rings out does he double over, consistent with him getting hit in the stomach. As he goes down, the bullet of the 3^rd shot hit him in the liver. As he turns away when he goes down, being hit the first time, he exposes his side for the second hit. When video captured him walking down the bleachers, he is holding his left hand over his side, where the liver shot was, and his right hand over his stomach.

Corey Comperatore was hit with the 4^th shot, the 1^st of the second volley of 5 consecutive shots.

Further working out that succession, Alexander highlighted these two moments:

First, we see Corey standing, continuing to film with his phone.

As you can see in the video, right after the first shot of the second volley (shot #4), you can see his hat flying:

Next, we have James Copenhaver. We see him act surprised after the first 3 shots, lower himself, but getting up after the first volley is over. The 4^th shot rings, and he ducks a little, getting shot and move down differently at the 5^th shot.

So we know that Dutch got hit in the first volley, and Comperatore and Copenhaver during the second volley, each on different bleachers and levels.

So, any reconstruction of the timeline needs to account for these hits, and the timing of them.

First floor windows are closed

Some theories try to answer some of the problems about trajectory and height of targets with a claim that shots were fired from the first floor windows of the AGR building Crooks was on.

This can be easily refuted: Both windows that would be a candidate were closed, as seen in this video from right after the shooting:

Stills:

Close-up of a similar window, on the other side of the building.

Since those windows remained closed, any theory that postulates shots fired from a level below the roof of the AGR building can be dismissed out of hand as wrong.

Position head Trump

This is important to determine the angle of the different proposed trajectories.

We all have seen this rendering:

A still from a newsreel taken right in front of the podium gives this information:

His head was just about parallel with his podium.

The reconstruction video shows the bullet way too late, when Trump’s head is already moving down in his reflect reaction after getting hit. Look closely at this video, change the speed to 0.25%, and watch. Roughly 7 seconds in, Trump is saying ‘take a look what happens...’, and then the crack of the shot. Focus on Trump’s right shoulder: he suddenly moves it up, as a pain reaction (notice his left shoulder does not follow suit). Since this is a reaction, the bullet hit Trump earlier. When? ‘Take a look what happens oh’. At that ‘oh’, Trump’s head is fully turned to his right, looking at his chart, and drawing the attention of his audience. Since he wants to talk about it, he is not just making a quick move with his head, but wanted to keep his gaze fixed on that chart, at least for a little bit, as he explained what they had to look for happening. Then he suddenly moves his head back in, and as that moves is underway, his shoulder starts to move up. That moment right before he moves his head back, is when the bullet struck him. See the above picture.

Trajectory of shot to hit ear Trump

With the position of his head known within reasonable margin, we can now more accurately determine the trajectory of the shot that hit Trump.

The below reconstruction is too late, when Trump turned his head more to his front, but let’s work with it, to show both positions. In orange, you see the only possible arc from which bullets could have to and just hit Trump’s ear, missing his skull.

Taking that information, and putting that out on the map, we get this area of possible origin of the shot:

Adding in several of the proposed directions of shots fired, we get this:

With the trajectories known, and the area of possible shots to hit only Trump’s ear and miss his skull, we can now very easily exclude any shots from the water tower and from behind the barns.

All this is based on geometry, and the known positions of Trump, the bleacher, Dutch, Comperatore and Copenhaver, as well as the exact timing of when each of those positions got hit.

None of this can be disputed, without rejecting the evidence shown by the video images provided.

Some try to point at audio analysis, as if that trumps any of the location and timing based evidence I provided.

Sound analysis is tricky, and not an exact science. An article, titled “An Introduction to Forensic Gunshot Acoustics”. In the article, the author explains how audio forensic works, and what some of the known problems are:

”Most people are familiar with the bang or crack sounds generated by firearms.  These sounds are loud, short in duration, and are generally distinguishable from other sounds in the environment.  Gunshots are commonly heard during military events, hunting, and around firing ranges.  They are also commonly associated with violent crime scenes, and due to the proliferation of handheld audio recording devices and cell phones, more gunshot sounds are becoming available to law enforcement for forensic analysis.   Forensic audio recordings are usually made with a single microphone, are poor-to-medium quality, and contain significant interference (voices, yelling, screaming, etc).  This is in contrast to specialized acoustic event locating systems used by the military and law enforcement, which are not addressed in this paper.”

And shortly thereafter:

”Gunshot recordings submitted for forensic analysis are usually made in less than ideal conditions.  In order to make sense of these recordings, analysts need to understand the underlying acoustics of impulse sounds, and then know what variations can occur and how the recording conditions can affect the signals.  The FBI has conducted a number of acoustic gunshot studies using many different types and models of firearms, high quality recording equipment, and multiple and different microphone placements relative to the firearm (range and azimuth angle), as shown in Figure 1.  The experiments were carefully controlled and made in both pristine and more realistic recording conditions.  Examination of the waveforms showed that the pristine recordings match closely with theoretical models, but there were a number of unexpected findings.  Waveforms recorded under more realistic conditions can vary significantly - even to the point of being unrecognizable and forensically unusable.”

This type of analysis is not something we can do simply by messing around with audio waves and ‘it sounds the same/different’.

Consider also these pictures:

and

Next, look back at the trajectories from 4 proposed locations:

Another very important point to keep in mind, is that ALL these points must be true/accounted for AT THE SAME TIME. You cannot pick and chose here. The theory about a shooter on the 2^nd floor of the AGR building, shooting through the open window, fails a very important test: their first shot does not line up between Trump’s ear and the railing at the top of the bleacher. As such, that theory is INVALID.

Same with any shot from the water tower of behind the barns: their first shots don’t line up with Trump and the railing, and as such cannot be the origin of the first 3 shots. There are other problems, but not as starkly true/false as these 5 facts.

Circumstances

Most of the next 5 points are typically answered with an analysis of the audio of the shooting, from different recordings.

These are NOT ‘strict facts’ (if an interpretation of audio disagrees with a finding based on geometry and location, the audio finding has to be discarded as flawed, not the geometry and location based finding), but shouldn’t simply be discarded, either.

3 shots

There is a first volley of 3 shots. Calm, methodological. Most people agree those are by the same shooter, and aimed at Trump (some exceptions there). If people disagree, why, exactly? Any real evidence, or ‘I hear a difference!’ that we just need to accept?

5 shots

The second volley consists of 5 shots, as most observers agree. They are fast, and clearly less well aimed. Their target is not clear, as during this volley Trump is no longer visible, let alone exposed to any lane of fire.

Here is where most disagreement arises. Some see here 1 shooter, others see 2 or 3 shooters, for various reasons. Different audio recordings show different elements that are then used as foundation for a variety of claims. Some sound convincing to the non-experts. I cannot say much apart from pointing out inconsistencies in claims, errors in logic, and such external things, as I am indeed no forensic audio expert, as just about none of the other people making those claims are.

I am waiting for the report that CNN spoke about, authored by Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver, and Cole Whitecotton, Senior Professional Research Associate at the same institution. They stated there were 3 weapons: the first three consistent with weapon A, the next 5 consistent with weapon B, and the last one with weapon C.

This invalidates any division of the second volley, but it also invalidates the claim that the 1^st and second volley are from the same shooter. I would like to see their report, and the margin of error/confidence of their analysis. Either way, to be looked at. A second weapon B still needs to answer the demands of the facts as outlined in the first section, as that does not change.

1 shot

The single shot, weapon C from Grigoras, is likely the shot by the local police sniper team, that missed. It might have shaken up Crooks, causing him to stop shooting, and shift position. He had only fired 8 times at that point, and had 22 rounds left in his magazine, assuming 30 round magazines, as is legal in PA.

last shot

The last shot comes about 10 seconds later, and is credited to the USSS sniper team killing the shooter, Crooks. The biggest controversy is where that shot came from, as conflicting reports came out about 400 yards, not consistent with the known location of the 2 USSS sniper teams.

Not even the Water Tower would qualify for that 400 yard kill shot, as it is 216 and 270 yards away from USSS Sniper team 1 and USSS Sniper team 2, respectively.

(question shots?)

Some go rather far in their sound analysis, and pick up sound patterns they claim are ‘hidden shots’, that most other tapes don’t show. While this cannot be excluded from the outset, this requires a strict methodology, and not the use of cheap audio programs and some rough estimates with the naked eye. This is more an art than a science, but ultimately still relies on the science. See the earlier explanation about forensic gunshot acoustics.

If you want to infer more shots, this has to be proven, not just claimed. What else needs to be explained, is the purpose of that shot, but that will be addressed in the next section.

‘Grand scheme of things’

Target for first volley of 3 shots

The first 3 shots are spaced and methodological, well-aimed. They clearly target Trump, and no one else (see also the hits section: Trump’s ear and the railing). Other victims (Dutch) simply was on the wrong side of the target.

Most people claim these 3 are consistent with each other, even though some others, stuck in their first assumptions and unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads them, are forced to propose different shooters and directions even within the first 3 shots.

It is incumbent upon anyone proposing an explanation of the shots to explain what the target was, and what the reason was to shoot at that target.

This is an attempted assassination of a former president and current presidential candidate. Some claim a conspiracy, that others are involved in this shooting (so far, I don’t disagree, but I agree based on facts, not just on principle, bias or a priori).  While that might be true, this is not a magic wand that now makes everything possible. People often refer to the killing of Kennedy, and the ‘grassy knoll’. Ok, there were 2 shooters, and Oswald was a patsy. Does that mean that every other assassination here MUST follow the same pattern?

We have today a lot more recordings, and, what is much worse for the conspirators, everyone, even private citizens, has recording devices on them, which makes any chance capture of something that wasn’t supposed to be seen impossible to prevent or contain. Such recordings can be spread instantaneously, too, and go viral within minutes, irretrievably so.

Having 2 snipers makes things a whole lot more complicated. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there were 2 snipers in on the conspiracy to murder Trump. The first one, Crooks, the patsy, or fall guy. Supposed to be killed (i.e., silenced forever) and painted as a lone wolf, acting on some arcane and unfortunate impulses. The other one is the ‘real’ killer, whose job it is to make sure to get the kill shot. Right? That is the general idea.

So who shoots first? The patsy, or the real one? The moment the first shot is fired, all advantage of surprise is gone, and the target will become invisible, untouchable, within seconds, courtesy of the bodies and armor of the Secret Service detail. Anything after the first shot cannot be planned for, is unforeseeable, uncontrollable. So, the first shot has to be made by the ‘real’ sniper, not the patsy.

We have this first volley, of clean, methodological and well placed shots. The first one only missed hitting Trump square in the skull because of a freak quick and minute move forward and turning of the head, decreasing the profile, and getting it just out of line, causing the bullet to only graze the ear. This must be the ‘real’ sniper, not the patsy.

Within this reasoning, the second, quick and more chaotic volley, would be the patsy, to be visible, and killed. His goal is not to kill the target, but to draw attention on him so he can be blamed as sole shooter.

So reasonably, the time between shooting by the patsy and real sniper should be minimal, to make sure the first kill shot is adequately concealed by the shots of the patsy.

I think we can all agree, that is the playbook, and makes the most sense. Why have the real shooter take his shots on the actual target, when that target is no longer visible, no longer exposed? Makes no sense!

Target for second volley of 5 shots

Then there is the second volley of 5 shots. Some claim there or more, or less shots, but I leave that aside (those who claim that must not just explain why that one recording shows only 4, or 6, shots, but also why all other recordings seem to indicate 5 shots. If such reasonable mechanism cannot be provided, that one video on which the claim is based must be discarded as the outlier, with a recording defect.

Within those 5 shots, many claim to hear different shooters. The division of who shot what varies widely, all based on this or that audio peculiarity the analysts claim to have found in subpar, compressed recordings by at best mediocre recording devices (as compared to the state of the art recording devices used for scientific sound analysis).

Here as well: what was the purpose of this second volley? I claim that the second volley came from Crooks, out of frustration he missed his chance, or just to kill more people as quick as he could, without caring who or what he hit. The fact that his grouping was still rather contained, centered around where Trump was, seems to indicate some kind of desperation/frustration, rather than a switching to plan B.

Which is still not impossible, because there is a 6^th shot, from what does sound like a different rifle, following quickly after the 5 shots: a counter-sniper team shooting, but missing, consistent with the police reports about the local police sniper team? Did that scare or stop Crooks, having him reconsider his position and/or next moves?

As you can see, this is not fixed fact. We don’t know, as Crooks is dead, and we don’t have any 2^nd or 3^rd shooter in custody who we can interrogate to get those answers. But what we CAN do, is ensure that our interpretation is internally consistent, coherent, and in line with the known facts, or at least plausible.

If we can offer such interpretation, we can have some confidence that it like went down the way we described. If our interpretation clashes with the known facts, we have to discard our interpretation, and not ignore or discard the facts. Or we need to adjust our interpretation. If our interpretation has internal problems, such as the inability to give a reasonable explanation for each of the shots, including target and rationale for that targeting and the timing, we must discard such interpretation as well. Logic dictates such.

Next we have the 2 single shots, which have been claimed in police and USSS reports, as coming from their respective teams. The first missing, the second killing Crooks. Any other proposed shot should similarly be able to be explained, at least to the level of plausibility.

8 casings on roof

This is a real deal-breaker for many of the ‘more than 1 shooter’ theories. 8 casings were found, confirmed by local police eyewitnesses who were on the roof, as relayed by Rep. Ron Johnson, and also by the FBI. If it was just the FBI, perhaps some skepticism might be warranted, until video and pictures of that rooftop, with the casings, becomes available, providing some chain of custody and reliability. But it is not, there are other witnesses to that fact.

The bodycam footage is similarly NOT proof against those 8 casings: the place where we would expect them is never shown (slightly behind the officer with the bodycam, or around/under Crooks, who could have moved over to his right, now covering the casings.

If a simple, plausible explanation like that can be given for why there is no trace on that video, that cannot be refuted, any contrary theory has a high burden of proof to clear: not just to explain where the other casings should be found, in what direction, but most importantly why that claim of 8 casings is wrong. It is one thing to claim ‘I don’t trust the FBI’ or ‘the government’, it is a whole other to accuse of, and, most importantly, prove actual fraud or cover-up.

So, if you want to propose why the second volley is comprised of shots from different shooters, the burden of proof is on you to show what the reason for each of the shooters was to make their shots, at that time, at that target. (Which means you have to show from where they were shooting, how that angle offers an at least plausible firing lane, and what their intended target was.)

You would have to show why the second shooter shot 2^nd, and not first, and, given that Trump was no longer visible, why that second shooter shot at that time, and didn’t wait until Trump became visible again, from their hidden spot, with all the attention at the patsy, Crooks...

None of the claims I’ve seen about second, third or even fourth shooters make general sense. They are geared to answer a certain subset of questions/explain certain known facts, but they always fail to explain ALL of them, at once, in a coherent fashion that makes sense.

“Well, this was a cover-up, with 2 shooters. The first was Crooks, who was a horrible shot, just there to take the blame and deflect suspicion from our actual shooter, who will shoot at the worst possible time, when Trump was no longer exposed!”

Well, no. I cannot follow any such theory, however convincing you think the sound explanation is. That kind of analysis, by itself, is NOT enough. There IS a hierarchy of trustworthiness, and acoustic analysis is not on top (but certainly can help in addition to other analysis). And when there are impossibilities (a first shot from the water tower, hitting his ear, would also have penetrated his skull, based on known locations and angles, and should have killed Trump, period. And thus, such theory has to be ruled out) we need to discard those theories immediately, because impossible.

Conclusion:

Below is the map, summarizing the above facts and reasoning:

Any explanation of the shooting must answer and accommodate the first 5 facts. It also must explain the more ‘intangible’ elements, such as the reason behind the targeting (what the shooters were aiming at, and why), and the timing (why at that moment, and not before or after?).

This is a complex event, and ALL the parts need to be accounted for, and in their right place. None of us would want to fly in a plane where one or 2 of the parts were not in their right place, or not in place at.

If you thought this was helpful, share, and comment!