The Canon XA55 Audio and a Stage Detonation (Claims)
:::caution Attributed claims only The ordinary baseline is that a loud sound in a courtyard surrounded by hard surfaces produces reflections, and that a supersonic bullet's ballistic crack, its muzzle report, and echoes off campus buildings routinely produce several low-frequency arrivals in a single recording. The analysis below is unpublished, its author unnamed, and its raw audio unavailable. Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted. :::
Claim snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| The claim | A Canon XA55 roughly 46m from the tent reportedly separates three low-frequency events — a Mach cone at +114ms, a muzzle blast at +202ms placing a rifle ~120m away, and a louder detonation at +321ms originating at the tent |
| Raised by | An unnamed analyst whose writeup is reproduced in the investigation file; amplified by @ProjectConstitu |
| First surfaced | Undated in source |
| Rests on | Anonymous post — no raw audio file, no named analyst, no independent replication, no published methodology |
| Evidence rating | EMERGING |
What is alleged
This is the acoustic backbone of every device theory on the site, so it is worth stating carefully. According to the analysis, a professional broadcast camera — a Canon XA55 — was recording at UVU on September 10 from roughly 46 metres from the tent, capturing uncompressed audio on four channels at 48,000 samples per second. The argument is that every phone in the crowd used compressed audio that smeared the events into a single noise, while the Canon's distance and fidelity separated them.
The claimed separation is three distinct low-frequency events: +114ms, early energy attributed to a Mach cone; +202ms, a muzzle blast placing the rifle approximately 120 metres away; and +321ms, described as a detonation originating approximately 46 metres from the camera — that is, at the tent, where Kirk was seated. The analysis states this third event is the loudest of the three and asserts: "It's not an echo. It's not a reflection."
From that the argument runs: a rifle 120 metres away and a detonation at the tent are two events at two locations, and a single shooter cannot produce both. Supporting claims include 733 supersonic N-wave signatures captured by the Canon's shotgun microphone against 123 on the best phone recording, and the shotgun mic clipping 122,844 audio samples because the source was in its line of fire while the built-in mics stayed clean.
The ordinary explanation
The methodology gap is the whole story here. A courtyard with a PA system, a tent canopy, a lectern, concrete pillars, and surrounding buildings is an acoustically reflective environment. A reflection arriving 185ms after the muzzle blast is precisely what a sound path roughly 60 metres longer than the direct path looks like — which, in a courtyard bounded by buildings, is an unremarkable geometry. The analysis's own framing concedes the point it needs to defeat: it declares the third peak "not an echo" but shows no methodology for excluding reflection, PA re-radiation, or structural resonance. Asserting that a peak is not an echo is not the same as demonstrating it.
That a reflected arrival can be the loudest peak is also not surprising. Focusing off a curved or parallel surface, constructive interference between arrivals, and the directional response of a shotgun microphone all routinely make an indirect arrival exceed a direct one in a given channel. And calling the third peak a "detonation" is an interpretation, not a measurement — nothing in a low-frequency pressure peak is labelled with its cause.
The evidentiary problems compound: no raw file has been released, no named credentialed analyst stands behind the work, and no independent party has replicated it. The N-wave count and the clipped-sample figure are precise numbers with no way to check them.
Now state the irony, because it is the most important thing on this page. This analysis is offered as proof of an explosion at the tent. But its own muzzle-blast measurement puts the rifle at approximately 120 metres — which corroborates the official Losee rooftop account, and 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. The document marshalled to overturn the official account confirms its shooter position. It also sits in direct tension with the claim that the acoustics point South, which is promoted on this same site. Both cannot be load-bearing.
What would settle it
- Release the original uncompressed Canon XA55 file so any acoustician can examine the waveform independently. Without it, nothing here is checkable.
- Name the analyst and publish the method — specifically, the test used to distinguish a detonation from a reflection at +321ms.
- Conduct an on-site acoustic survey: fire a reference source from the Losee rooftop and measure the reflection arrivals at the Canon's position. This would establish directly whether a ~185ms echo is expected there.
- Have a named, credentialed forensic acoustician review the recording. None is cited anywhere in the investigation file.
Sources
- The Canon XA55 analysis is reproduced in full in the investigation file from an unnamed analyst; no direct URL is cited in the file.
- @ProjectConstitu amplified the analysis; no direct URL for that post is cited in the file.
- The competing acoustic claim is at the acoustics point South, sourced to https://x.com/ProjectConstitu/status/1981085808699338766