The Canon XA55 Audio and a Third Boom (Claims)
:::caution Attributed claims only No analyst is named for this analysis, no raw audio is published, and no methodology is documented well enough to re-run. No independent acoustician has reviewed it. Nothing below establishes that any device detonated or that any person did anything wrong. It is an unsourced claim, recorded and examined, not a finding. :::
Claim snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| The claim | A Canon XA55 broadcast camera about 46 m from the tent reportedly recorded uncompressed 48 kHz audio on four channels, and an analysis claims it resolves three low-frequency events: Mach-cone energy at +114 ms, a muzzle blast at +202 ms placing a rifle ~120 m away, and a third, loudest event at +321 ms originating ~46 m from the camera — that is, at the tent |
| Raised by | Unattributed in the investigation file; associated with the Project Constitution and exploding-mic circle |
| First surfaced | Undated in source |
| Rests on | Anonymous post — no named analyst, no link, no raw audio, no re-runnable methodology |
| Evidence rating | SPECULATIVE |
What is alleged
The analysis argues that phone recordings smear the event into one noise because their audio is compressed, while the Canon's uncompressed four-channel capture separates it. It claims the high frequencies arrived first, spread over 100-plus milliseconds, followed by a muzzle blast and then a detonation originating from the stage. The three events are given precisely: +114 ms Mach cone, +202 ms muzzle blast from ~120 m, and +321 ms a detonation at the stage which the analysis calls "the LOUDEST of the three" and "the strongest low-frequency peak in the entire recording," located approximately 46 m from the camera — "Right at the tent. Right were Charlie was seated."
Supporting numbers offered: the camera's shotgun microphone reportedly captured 733 supersonic N-wave signatures against 123 on the best phone recording, and reportedly clipped 122,844 audio samples because "the sound source was directly in its line of fire," while the built-in mics captured clean audio with almost zero clipping.
None of this is sourced. The file names no analyst, links no post, publishes no audio file, and describes no method another person could execute.
The ordinary explanation
The explanation is acoustics, and it is not exotic. The UVU courtyard is ringed by hard-faced buildings. A single supersonic rifle shot in that geometry produces a ballistic crack, a muzzle blast, and then multiple strong reflections arriving over hundreds of milliseconds. Three low-frequency events at +114, +202 and +321 ms is exactly what one shot in a reverberant courtyard sounds like.
An echo off the building behind the tent would, to a naive time-of-arrival calculation, appear to "originate" near the tent — because the calculation assumes a direct path and there isn't one. And a focused reflection off a flat façade can be louder at a given microphone than the direct blast, so "the loudest event must be the real event" is precisely the inference that reverberation defeats. "Uncompressed" does not equal "correctly analyzed." N-wave counting is not a standard forensic method with a published error model, and counting more of them on a better microphone is what a better microphone does.
And here is the irony this analysis cannot escape. Its own muzzle-blast figure puts the rifle at ~120 m, and it volunteers that an independent ten-camera analysis put it at 127 m — "within 6%." That distance is consistent with the Losee Center rooftop, which is where the state says the shot came from. The analysis being used to prove a bomb at the tent simultaneously corroborates a rifle exactly where the official account places it. You cannot bank the half you like and discard the half you don't.
What would settle it
- Publish the raw, unedited Canon XA55 audio files with their original timecode and channel assignments.
- Name the analyst and publish the methodology — window sizes, correlation method, assumed speed of sound, and how direct arrivals were separated from reflections.
- Have an independent forensic acoustician with no stake in the case re-run the analysis blind.
- Model the courtyard's reflective geometry and predict the reflection arrival times; if they land near +321 ms, the claim is answered.
- Establish the camera's exact surveyed position, because every distance here depends on it.
Sources
- Investigation file, section "Mic and Camera Canon XA55": the three-event breakdown, the 733 versus 123 N-wave figures, the 122,844 clipped samples, and the ~120 m versus 127 m comparison.
- No primary source, named analyst, URL, or audio file is cited in the investigation file for this analysis.