186 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 22 Jul \ on: Audio Analysis of Trump Assassination Attempt Reveals Multiple Shooters? conspiracy
@k00b, I've been thinking about this audio analysis. Its great but a few things I think he misses or at least didn't address.
First, when objects like a crowd move or the microphone moves (phone mics) this can affect the sound. Sound bounces off of bodies and objects. Human bodies absorb sound. If you do a sound check for a band with an empty room you get different results when the room is full. After the first shot a lot of people move, and drop to the ground. Maybe its far fetched but it seems to me this would have an effect on the sound of the shots. Some of the video is shot from mobile phones and these sources are likely even more inconsistent than a stationary mic.
Second, to my knowledge we have no footage of Crooks firing his weapon. It is possible that he moved between the shots. I admit this is less likely but here's what I'm wondering. After the first 3 shots what if he stood up for the rapid fire rounds? I would like to hear a ballistics expert talk about this as well as an audio engineer.
Third, what if the second round of fire was from law enforcement near the shooter returning fire?
Fourth, what if the last volley of shots were not directed at Trump but were directed at another target in defense? I've not seen an accounting of each shot yet. It is odd to me that with all those shots no Secret Service were hit. After Trump fell was he out of the view of crooks? Where was he aiming at that point? Was anyone hit in the second volley?
I'll just say, I'm not ready to believe there were more than one assassin. There were multiple shooters. though. At least two. Crooks and one counter sniper.
The FBI came out the next day and said two law enforcement officers fired on Crooks (imo in response to this video). It didn't get much attention but that's what they claimed.
Martenson has also acknowledged that the phone microphone was not stationary and that it might affect analysis.
I agree in general though that Martenson jumps to confident conclusions way too fast even if he's willing to change his mind just as fast. He was super confident about the ladder in his first video which served as a significant reminder for me that he shares his thoughts in an unscientific way.
Still, I think audio forensics, absent better video, is going to be the best source of evidence for an unofficial, alternative investigation.
reply
As a kid I was always fascinated by things from the edge. I listened to Art Bell's show "Coast to Coast AM" many nights as I went to sleep. I was really into conspiracy theories as I've talked about on SN. Over the years as I did more reading and studying I learned that the things that governments and companies admit to doing, things that are exposed and proven are often so crazy few believe them. Not to mention that these stories are often buried and ignored in the history we are taught in schools(lies of omission). That led me to kinda pump the brakes on my conspiracy theory interest.
Then I started learning about how the state will use these theories to some of the less credible people that push them to discredit legitimate questions. I think our curiosity and excitement about finding something out or exposing something before others can cloud our judgement.
I'm not saying trust authority. I'm saying the opposite. Many say they don't trust authority but they trust some person online that has a lot to gain from grabbing attention with wild speculation. If one is skeptical of the state they should also have that same level of skepticism from companies and individuals with something to gain from their stories and theories.
Its a complex world and many will be seeking to profit off of these crazy events. What we know the state does and can prove they have done in the past is far more than enough to never trust them. We don't need to make stuff up.
Not suggesting this guy is making stuff up. This was the first time I had encountered him.
reply
I hear you. I consider myself a conspiracy spectator. I know I'll never answer these questions, but I find watching others attempt to answer them fascinating. I don't believe conspiracy theories generically, but I don't believe official theories generically either. I believe what's independently verifiable and rarely is anything at this scale independently verifiable.
The kneejerk for anti-conspiracy theorists is that we need to shelter weak minds from conspiracies, including our own minds sometimes. I have less of this impulse than many do.