Audio Forensic Analysis of the Attempted Trump Assassination & Tower Shooter

By
M Dowling
-
7
819

Update: A Fox correspondent reports that a local sniper team fired at Thomas Crooks. It might explain the audio analysis below.

The International Business Times and Infowars reported earlier this week that there might have been a third shooter based on an audio forensic analysis. The professor believes he can prove it. Oliver Alexander pointed to a significant error.

Before you become convinced that the professor is accurate, read Oliver Alexander’s analysis and that of the expert he consulted.

The IBT report:

Audio forensic experts from the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado suggest the possibility of a second shooter. Catalin Grigoras and Cole Whitecotton noted differences in the sound of the shots, indicating multiple weapons. While one shooter has been identified, and another was a Secret Service sniper, the third potential shooter remains unknown.

Former deputy undersecretary of defense Stephen Bryen highlighted this controversial analysis, urging further investigation. Initial gunfire came from the identified shooter Thomas Matthew Crook’s location, but a second burst was detected from a different spot. Acoustic evidence suggests at least two shooters, excluding the Secret Service.

The exact number of shots fired by Secret Service snipers is unclear, though most reports say it took one shot to neutralize the shooter. This sequence does not fully match the acoustic evidence, which points to a final shot that might have come from the snipers.

Oliver Alexander rejects the analysis. He also rejects the Tower shooter theory.

You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:

PowerInbox
5 1 vote
Article Rating
7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Prisoner
10 months ago

There are huge credibility differences in these analyses.

Mark’s claim of different charges in the same gun is ridiculous. The 20 year old was making bullets? Where’s the bullet making equipment?

Oliver presents as facts things he does not know, reducing his credibility. He proposes a sequence of shots, but states who shot them. The timing does not show who shot them. That makes him a liar. Plus, his claim of 8 shots, which are on the recordings, is inconsistent with the SS claim than a 2nd person fired at the “gunman”, since he has 7 shots at Trump. Thus, he has already been caught in a contradiction. His story is already disproven. So, I believe nothing he says.

Chris presents in a balanced, analytical manner. He states few things with certainty. He identifies other evidence which is needed to create a full picture. He shows none of the arrogance and deception of Oliver.

This is how you judge the credibility of a person, folks.

The moving microphone idea is ridiculous. Sound travels at 768 mph, hundred of times faster than people with cell phones.

1
Canadian Friend
10 months ago

I am sorry but Robert C Maher the gun acoustic expert is wrong ( or lying )

The authorities have admitted there was a third shooter.

as I said in my other comment, the audio analysis DOES clearly reveal the sound signature of 3 different rifles.

I don t know if that expert was bribed to lie, or if he lied because he hates Trump, but if he is really an expert how can he say the sound of all shots is the same when the feds just admitted there was 3 different rifles used ???

It hard to find honest people these days.

2
The Prisoner
10 months ago
Reply to  Canadian Friend

Maher seems to be fed info from the authorities, and the story changed since them, making him discredited. The sound difference between the shots is obvious, without seeing the waveforms. There are plenty of people willing to lie for the government for a price.

The 5th, 6th and 7th shots are shrill compared to the first 4. That is why Chris played them over several times, to let people hear for themselves, instead of being fed drivel. We deserve the respect to be shown things, to told what to think.

It seems that the first 2 shots were followed by a flurry of shots from the real snipers, but it was too late to kill Trump because he was going out of view.

2
Canadian Friend
10 months ago

Well they just admitted there was a third shooter!

” … Feds Now Say a Local Sniper Also Shot at Crooks After He Started Firing on President Trump — This Only Took a Week to Report? …”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/they-keep-changing-their-story-feds-now-say/

2
Trump Won
10 months ago
Reply to  Canadian Friend

Check out the comments on the GP article. Interesting observations from many of them. Too bad they don’t work for the government, we’d know exactly what happened on Saturday. IMHO I don’t think we ever will.

4
The Prisoner
10 months ago
Reply to  Canadian Friend

Look at the arrogance of this guy Oliver. He has no ballistics data to show where those shots came from, yet insists he knows who shot them, violating professional standards:

Crooks fires 3 shots followed up by 4 additional shots in rapid succession with a short pause in between.

0
Canadian Friend
10 months ago
Reply to  The Prisoner

I have watched the audio video at least a dozen times and not only is it clear that the first 3 shots sound very different than the following 5 or 6

but I suddenly realised something

the first 3 shots are fired at relatively slow rate ; one per second or just a tad faster

the next 5 or 6 are fired at a very rapid rate, all 5 or 6 are done in about 2 seconds

Professional snipers do not fire at a rapid rate because that makes you lose some precision.

Firing at a rapid, a frantic rate, would be something an amateur like Crooks would do.

and another thing ” reinforces” this ;

the first 3 shots are muffled and have no echo…as when shot from inside a building trough an opened window…

the 5 or 6 next ones are not muffled at all and have an echo; as shots fired from the roof where Crooks was would.

Which raises another question; how come the professional sniper shot first and then was followed by Crooks ?

and let s say I am wrong and the 3 slow shots were Crooks and the 5 or 6 fast ones were the sniper shooting Crooks, why is Crooks body or head not full of many bullet holes ???

1
  wpDiscuz