Single Shooter, after all!

New videos, angles and support speak clearly

EDITED: see bottom for a correction and important additional information!


Update:

Yeah… It keeps adding up. Sorry, not sorry! I’m juggling wife and kids in summer vacation, while reading to keep up with what is going on and chasing loose ends. I hate loose ends on stories, and too much does not fit here.

I found this amazing thread by Oliver Alexander on X.

He has been fighting John Cullen, as well, who is entrenched in his own idea about the water tower.
Oliver Alexander found a great video, with a wide angle view of the event. It shows both bleachers, and Trump, at the moment of the shots.

(It’s different from the video Cullen used for his claims, which is this one [found it!])

He created this map, including the locations of Trump and the other 3 known victims, Corey Comperatore, David Dutch and James Copenhaver:

Alexander goes shot by shot, based on what the wide angle video now shows, combined with what else we know.

The first one hits Trump, and the rail.

Does it? We spoke at length about this in my previous article, later more.

Alexander describes the second and third round as missing Trump narrowly, hitting David Dutch.

Fox News reports: “Dutch, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, was struck twice at the Trump rally — once in the stomach and once in the liver, according to those who know him at the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars lodges in Lower Burrell.”

So both other bullets hit him.

Crooks second volley is fast, and uncontrolled: did he panic after he realized he missed Trump? These 5 rounds hit and kill Corey Comperatore, and critically wound James Copenhaver.

Alexander ‘goes in for the kill’, and points out that the slightly higher resolution shot, showing the water tower, rules out a person there.

On that topic: there IS a ladder on the side of the water tower, but that only leads to the walkway around the tower, NOT the top.

Oliver Alexander concludes:
“All shots were taken from the same location consistent with Crook’s known location.

In the video we also hear the first and second counter-sniper shots. The first right at the end of Crook’s second volley bringing it to an end and the second a few seconds after.

Had the counter-snipers not fired when they did, Crook’s second volley would have likely continued for longer potentially injuring and killing even more people.”

At the end of his thread, he dismissed the water tower theory based on what I had suggested, namely that there is no line of sight from the tower to where the podium was, based on the height of the jumbo-tron. I am not completely happy with this, as it is based on estimate reconstructions on Google Earth 3D, and not on solid measurements and trigonometry. But that does not mean it isn’t right. My bet is, based on the angles I have seen on video and pictures, that there is indeed no direct line of sight. I just cannot prove it to a satisfactory degree.

Alexander then shows a reconstruction, in 3D, of the point of view from Crooker’s position, and it will all make sense:

Zoomed in:

 He ends with a slight mistake. He tries to reconstruct the bleacher, but missed the right type.

As stated in my previous article, this is a rentable 10-row towable bleacher https://bigtenrentals.com/rental-items/10-row-45-feet/ , with known dimensions, placing the railing at 11’2.

He then places Trump’s head at around 11’, ‘given the height of the stage’, without ever giving the explanation why the stage was 5 feet high.

This gives a beautiful reconstruction, but leaves the same problem: Trump’s head is at 10 feet, the bleacher at 11.2 feet. Not a downward angle...

But seeing the exact sequence of shots, able to identify who got shot, when, a lot becomes so much more clear.

Now check out this superb reconstruction by Amber, the best I have seen so far! Not every detail is how I would reconstruct it, but it is rather amazing to see how another private citizen, on her time and money, can do so much better than the media corporation with all their money and experts. Baffling.

This is why I am such a stickler for the fine details, and for only speaking based on what can reasonably be proven (to state as a fact) or deemed highly plausible (to state as the most likely explanation).

Without the finer details, we are open to make wrong assumptions, laying a wrong foundation for our reconstruction. Guess what happens when you try to reconstruct events based on a skewed foundation? You’re going to miss the target, and the real events... Details, however minute, are so important. Truth is so important. All of it. Not most, not ‘about’, but in as fine a detail as you can.

Our problem was with the trajectory, seemingly going upwards, from 10 feet to 11.2 feet. But this problem was predicated on the assumption that the round used was a heavier round, capable to hit Trump, hit David Dutch, and then have enough energy left to make a nice splash on the railing. Now, however, we know that Dutch wasn’t hit by the first round, but only by the 2^nd and 3^rd rounds! He turns after the first shot, then gets hit twice, moves in a sudden, jerking move each time, and collapses.

This removes the need to upgrade the round from the original 5.56 to a heavier one. Any heavier round, hitting Trump’s ear, would simply keep going straight. I don’t think anyone would disagree (if you do, please explain why in the comments, I’d be very interested).

A 5.56 round, however, is known to become easily unstable. Hitting an ear is a very soft target, but it is not uniform in shape and thickness, and it is elastic, meaning that the forces exerted on the bullet (about 55 to 69 grains, or between 3.6 and 4.5 grams!) while it rips (easily) through the ear are uneven. This will likely cause even the slightest deviation.

Now, given the distance from Trump to the edge of the bleachers (about 70 feet), and the known difference in height (1.2 feet), we can calculate that possible deflection. With a straight triangle, with the opposite and adjacent measuring 70 feet and 1.2 feet, we have an angle of 0.98 degrees. That means that the bullet only rose 0.2 inches (5.5 millimeter) PER FOOT. That is very close to nothing.

Suddenly, this deviation becomes very plausible, explaining our problem. Now we don’t need a second shooter for who we have zero evidence, not in images nor in sound signatures. Now we don’t need to explain away a shot that ends at 3 feet high at 400 feet away, where there is no window opening to make that shot from.

We now can focus on the 2 or 3 missing shots. One is the sniper kill shot, but what about the other one or two? Sniper shots that have not been disclosed yet, because they missed? Or was Crooks shot twice, hit by the Secret Service sniper team (team 1, closest to him) and was his movement towards the people because he got hit, discarding his gun, and moving to his right? Coming in view of the second team, who then finished him with a head shot?

What about that possible 3^rd shot right after the different shot that concludes the volley of 5 shots? Other videos from different angles need to be analyzed, to see if they pick up such a shot signature, or not. It might be an artifact of a poor cell phone microphone, maybe not.

I was made aware of a news report that stated “Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said a Beaver County Emergency Services Unit officer fired a shot that "appeared to cause a reaction from Crooks.” This Emergency Services Unit officer was part of a team on the second floor of the building behind Crooks. This makes little sense to me: there is no audio of such a shot, and why only fire 1 shot? Crooks did not return fire, but started shooting. This, if true, would be another enormous blunder by law enforcement.

Unless, of course, it was a single shot, accounting for either the 1^st or possible second of the missing shots. Causing Crooks to discard his gun right after the second volley, and duck to his right, fully opening himself to the fire of the other Sniper Team... Now things start to make full sense, with everything accounted for!

The question remains, though: if any of those 2 or 3 missing shots was not by law enforcement, but by some malicious ‘grassy knoll’ ‘real sniper’, how come he shot when there was absolutely NO target to shoot at? Trump was fully covered, safe underneath the bodies and body armor of the Secret Service agents. Such a shot would completely ruin the ruse of ‘single shooter’. This is a very long stretch, that would require a lot more than ‘I think’, ‘I feel’, ‘I need it to be so to match my distrust of the current government’ (a distrust I share, btw) to make it acceptable to any reasonable and impartial judge or jury.

That jury is us. Me. You. Let’s not get carried away, and make a sound judgement. Based on the facts, not on what we think or feel or want to be the case.

I see, at this point, ZERO actual evidence for a second shooter.

I see strong and very plausible support for a single shooter, located on the rooftop of the glass firm. With all his shots accounted for, and within a very reasonable target window and succession. With a very reasonable explanation for why he missed a target he had dead in his crosshairs.

Very important to understand: NONE OF THIS denies any other wrongdoing by any other party, nor any malicious planning and eroding of Trump’s security detail. If a plot, it was a hasty plot, hastily and sloppily carried out. With lots of lose ends that anons and patriots are increasingly picking up on, and more and more whistleblowers are leaking.

Truth matters.

If you are going to accuse anyone, make sure it is unassailable, based only on those elements that can be proven, and excluding all other elements that can be proven to be irrelevant. Don’t keep in any distractions, or flat-out errors, or any other ways out for the other side: things they can exploit, by proven you got it all wrong, after all, dismissing your credibility.

And then there is this:

“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.” C.S. Lewis

The smallest of details matter.

The smallest of friction differential in his ear deflected the bullet ever so slightly.

The smallest of turns of his head saved Trump’s life.

Commit to truth. 100%.

This position won’t get me clicks (I don’t charge for my substack anyway, on purpose), but it is the truth, and thus, I defend it. It is that desire for truth that makes me easily admit I got something wrong, or might have gotten something wrong. It is that desire for truth that keeps me digging, to answer every question I can, especially when finding new information. Truth matters.

If you think I got anything wrong, let me know in the comments, and explain what I got wrong, why it is wrong, and what the better solution would be. Or, if you have new information, new videos or pictures, please share them. I’d be most grateful. If I get proven wrong, truth wins.

---

Addendum:

At the request of some of you, here is a map of the locations of the people hit.
Most could be confirmed, except the location of the nephew of Texas Congressman Ronnie Jackson (I could not even find a picture of the victim, so I can’t locate on any video, either), and the Motor Cycle cops.
The nephew is either on the left hand bleacher (I remember seeing someone get wounded on the front row or second row, near the middle, in one of the videos, but can’t find that specific video to confirm.), or else on the other side, where reports place all the wounded victims. This makes more sense, as this is where bullets had a line of fire to.
The Cops were not in the videos I’ve seen (as in: ‘confirmed not in front of the bleachers nor on the bleachers’), and likely were on the side, near the road where their motor cycles were. If they got hit by shrapnel, the most likely cause is the shot hitting the rail, raining down on cops standing around behind the bleacher. From there, they sprung in action, and went to the nearest bleacher, the right-hand one, to offer assistance.

---

EDITS

First of all, I was made aware that the water tower DOES have a ladder at the back, which I didn’t see.

This does not change any of the debunking of the claims regarding a shooter on that water tower. There is no evidence (the pics and videos shown are heavily pixelated, as can be seen by the ‘dancing’ logo: if the logo can move so much, the shadow on top did move around, too, giving the false impression of a ‘person’ there), there is no or a very poor line of sight from that tower towards where Trump was, and the angle of those shots simply don’t match the known shots and impact points/directions.

Second: the following news was made public today:

This is another huge piece of the puzzle, giving us now 3 official guns: Crooks, the USSS sniper team, and the local police sniper team, fully in line with Grigoras’ analysis, as cited by CNN.

But as long as we cannot access that analysis, and see the methodology and source for her claims, those are bare assertions and unknown data points. I am not saying she is wrong, simply that I cannot verify them. Which 3 shooters is she talking about? With this new information, it was the local police sniper team that made one of the shots, but missed (the '6th' shot, immediately after the rapid fire 5 shots?). Now we have 3 shooters: 2 police, 1 Crooks, exactly following Grigoras’ analysis. See what I mean? We cannot use the very bare bones claim by CNN about her report, without seeing the report and find out what exactly she found.

Third, a reader pointed at the following 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’.

Fourth:
This bit of fascinating proof comes from the incredible Brendon Herrera (Let's Go Brandon!), a well-known guntuber and congressional candidate (sadly lost his primary against a rino with only 400 votes, coming from complete obscurity to the local population against an incumbent, incredible work!). He made a video recreating the shot hitting Trump in the ear, as well as the shot hitting the shooter.

Using a readily available and budget AR-15 (DPMS, chambered in 5.56 NATO), with a red-dot mounted just a bit too much forward (‘as the video indicated’, according to Herrera), he proceeds to shoot at a ballistic gel dummy head. A first shot slightly grazed the lower bottom of the ear, a second shot hit the ear lobe full on.

Look at how that round lost its balance, and started moving off-center. This can easily result in the required 0.2 inches rise per foot of distance traveled… You wanted firm proof, this is as close as you will get. (We cannot exactly recreate the shot, with Trump’s specific ear and tissue characteristics!) But we can confirm that the rise I mentioned is perfectly within range of what is possible, even likely. This video proves that, without any doubt left.