To be honest, I'm having my doubts that it will do any good. You...

To be honest, I'm having my doubts that it will do any good. You know as well as everyone that you write a lot of posts. Like, a lot!
So, you are aware you can have 'led' with a line about something else at one point, but still be 'leading' with the windscreen 'theory' later.

Here was your original - you will recall I didn't really give it much credit.
I will only look at your first point (what is it with you and leading points?). If you can't accept being wrong about one thing, why bother continuing?
https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/74109521/single
AndyL/Milo - Video is filmed from a fixed location, not a drone, the only reason for the constant panning, zooming and moving around is for cinematic effect

1. Sorry AndyL, the angle changes at 3:40.
2. The reason for panning is shown at 0:48 - are you suggesting the spotter should have kept looking at the empty grass?

I have already shown you the response I was referencing. The one you made AFTER finding a 'pretty good thread debunking the video' on twitter, and which you found so powerful you decided to change a lot of your argument.
And leading your points, after the usual intro, was that you thought someone was firing from inside the car.
Next time maybe check the ideas presented before declaring yourself victorious?