The Acoustics Point South, Not to Losee (Claims)
:::caution Attributed claims only The ordinary baseline is that single-recording bearing estimates are unreliable in a reverberant courtyard, where echoes off surrounding buildings routinely produce an apparent source far from the true one. The analyst below is unnamed and his credentials unverified, and his conclusion conflicts directly with another analysis promoted on this same site. Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted. :::
Claim snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| The claim | Acoustic analysis walked through a 3D model of the courtyard reportedly shows the shot came from the South — above the Teachers' balcony — rather than from the Losee rooftop |
| Raised by | An unnamed person described as a sound and acoustics engineer, in a video posted by @ProjectConstitu |
| First surfaced | Post dated 2025-10-22 |
| Rests on | Anonymous post — a video walkthrough of an author-built 3D model; no published method, no raw audio, no named analyst |
| Evidence rating | THIN |
What is alleged
@ProjectConstitu published a video by a person described as a sound and acoustics engineer who reportedly walks through a 3D model of the UVU courtyard and concludes that the shot came from the South, above the Teachers' balcony — not from the Losee building rooftop where the State places Tyler Robinson.
The cause-of-death relevance is direct and is why the claim is here rather than only in the venue treatment of the same analysis. If the round did not come from Losee, then the wound trajectory and the front-left neck injury do not line up with the State's shooter, and the physical case against a man who is charged but not convicted loses its geometry. The investigation file adds a supporting observation frequently paired with this claim: there is reportedly no available footage and no eyewitness account of anyone seen firing a shot from the Losee building — a genuine gap, and one that appears on Candace Owens' list of anomalies.
Other posts push in the same general direction by different means, including the argument that a shooter fired from inside the tent using an Israeli CornerShot. That claim is examined on the entrance-or-exit page; note that it is not the same claim as this one. A shooter South above a balcony and a shooter inside the tent are different positions.
The ordinary explanation
Start with what is missing. The analyst is unnamed. His credentials are unverified. No methodology is published, no raw audio is released, and no independent party has replicated the result. A video walkthrough of a 3D model the author built himself is a presentation of a conclusion, not a demonstration of one.
Then the physics. Reverberant campus acoustics make single-recording bearing estimates unreliable, and this is not a quibble — it is the central difficulty of the discipline. In a courtyard bounded by hard-faced buildings, a strong early reflection can arrive louder and cleaner than the direct sound, and echoes routinely produce a phantom source 90 to 180 degrees off the true bearing. Determining a shot's origin from a single recording in that environment is exactly the situation where confident answers should be least trusted.
But the decisive objection comes from inside this site's own material. The Canon XA55 analysis — which is promoted here as evidence of an explosion at the tent — measures the muzzle blast at +202ms and places the rifle at approximately 120 metres from the camera. That distance matches the Losee rooftop. It also lands within about 6% of a separate 10-camera photogrammetric estimate of 127 metres. Two independent methods, the same answer, and that answer is the State's shooter position.
So the site is hosting two acoustic analyses that cannot both be load-bearing. One says the shot came from the South above a balcony. The other says a rifle fired from ~120 metres, which is Losee. Proponents cite both, often in the same breath, as though each strengthens the other. They contradict each other. Anyone who wants to rely on the Canon analysis's detonation peak must also accept its rifle position — and that rifle position corroborates the official account this page is offered to undermine.
The Losee-footage gap is real and worth pursuing on its own terms. But an absence of footage of a shooter is not a bearing measurement, and it does not point South.
What would settle it
- Name the analyst and publish the method — the recordings used, the model's assumptions, and the test applied to distinguish direct arrivals from reflections.
- Conduct an on-site acoustic survey: fire a reference source from the Losee rooftop and from the Teachers' balcony, record from the same camera positions, and compare. This is straightforward and would resolve the bearing outright.
- Ask the proponents to reconcile the South balcony conclusion with the ~120m rifle conclusion from the Canon analysis they also promote.
- Obtain the complete set of original camera files from the courtyard, uncompressed, and give them to a named forensic acoustician.
Sources
- @ProjectConstitu, 2025-10-22, posting the acoustics video — https://x.com/ProjectConstitu/status/1981085808699338766
- The analyst in that video is unnamed in the investigation file, and his credentials are unverified.
- The conflicting ~120m muzzle-blast estimate comes from the Canon XA55 analysis reproduced in the investigation file from an unnamed analyst; no direct URL is cited.
- The reported absence of Losee footage and eyewitnesses appears in a Candace Owens video transcribed in the file, posted by @ProjectConstitu, 2026-06-17 — https://x.com/ProjectConstitu/status/2067372027623715212