What specific frames and timestamps did The New York Times use to conclude the vehicle’s wheels were pointed away from the agent?

1. What the Times said and which videos it analyzed

The New York Times published a short video analysis titled “Videos contradict Trump Administration account of ICE shooting in Minneapolis,” and in that piece the Times examined at least three clips — Callenson’s longer bystander video, a vertical balcony video, and a third bystander clip — to argue that the agent fired while standing left of the SUV and that the SUV’s wheels were pointing to the right, away from the agent, as the shots were fired ^[1]. Secondary writeups and reposts of the Times’ piece describe the Times’ use of multiple camera angles and visual-forensics techniques to challenge the administration’s self-defense framing ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the reporting shows the Times emphasized, not the raw frame data

Coverage repeatedly quotes the Times’ descriptive claim — “the moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right away from the agent” — and highlights the Times’ reliance on cross-angle comparison and slowed playback to show the car’s backward motion while the agent’s foot and body position remained at the side of the vehicle ^{[1] [2]}. These summaries make clear which visual facts the Times foregrounded (agent lateral position, wheel orientation, and vehicle movement) but do not transcribe the Times’ internal frame-by-frame labels or timestamp values ^{[1] [2]}.

3. What the available sources do not show: missing timestamps and frame indices

None of the sourced material reproduces the Times’ internal frame numbers or the exact second-mark timestamps the Times used to mark “the moment” of firing and wheel orientation; Nieman Lab and aggregator posts quote and paraphrase the Times’ conclusions but do not embed its frame-by-frame callouts or list the specific timecodes viewers should jump to ^{[1] [2]}. FactCheck.org reports the Times’ textual finding that “the vehicle appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire,” but likewise stops short of presenting the Times’ raw frame/timestamp data ^[3].

4. How other analysts treated the same moments and why that matters

Investigative groups such as Bellingcat performed their own frame-by-frame scrubs of Callenson’s clip to highlight hand, phone and gun positioning, and noted visual cues in the same video (for example, the camera app appearing on the agent’s phone 45 seconds after the shooting) — showing there is independent, detailed forensic interest in specific frames even if the Times’ public summary doesn’t publish its timecode table ^[1]. Reporting by FactCheck.org and others underscores that video interpretation can yield different legal or perceptual conclusions even when parties agree on visual facts like wheel movement, which is why timestamps and methodology transparency matter to adjudicate competing narratives ^[3].

5. Conclusion: answer to the narrow question and what remains to be obtained

The direct answer: the publicly available sources confirm The New York Times used Callenson’s video, a vertical balcony video and a third bystander clip to conclude the SUV’s wheels were pointed away from the agent at the moment he fired, and they quote the Times’ description of that instant — but they do not provide the specific frame numbers or second-mark timestamps that the Times used in its analysis ^{[1] [2] [3]}. To obtain those exact frames/timestamps, one would need either the Times’ original video analysis page with its embedded timecodes or the Times’ published clip with visible timecode overlays; those raw details are not present in the reporting collected here ^{[1] [2]}.