What frame-by-frame analyses have The New York Times and NBC published on the officer-perspective video?

1. The New York Times’ frame-by-frame forensic work: what it did and what it concluded

The Times assembled newly available and existing footage, synchronized the streams, and walked readers through a frame-by-frame timeline intended to show precisely where the agent stood, how the vehicle moved, and when gunfire occurred, concluding that the vehicle “appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire” and that the agent’s position relative to the SUV undermines assertions that the vehicle was ramming the officer ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The package cross‑checked an officer-perspective clip (the so‑called Callenson video) with a vertical balcony shot and a third bystander video, using visual forensics to parse wheel direction, agent foot placement, and the camera’s jostle when shots rang out—details the Times presented as central to assessing whether the shooting matched the government’s self‑defense account ^{[2] [1]}.

2. NBC’s publication of the officer-perspective video and its editorial posture

NBC published the officer-perspective video itself and described what that single-angle clip shows and does not show: the recording captures the agent exiting his vehicle, approaching and walking around the driver’s SUV, the car moving forward and to the right as the camera is jostled, and then the camera being lifted in time to show the SUV driving away; NBC explicitly notes that the video does not show the exact instant of shots being fired and cites third‑party reporting that highlights the Times’ finding about the agent’s feet being to the side of the vehicle when the first shot was heard ^[3]. NBC’s coverage functions as primary‑source publication plus reporting, not as a technical, multi-angle frame‑by‑frame visual forensics piece comparable to the Times’ synchronized analysis ^[3].

3. Points of agreement, divergence, and corroboration from others

The Times’ frame‑by‑frame conclusions were echoed and augmented by other forensic reporters and open‑source investigators—Nieman Lab and Bellingcat noted that the Times compared multiple videos and that Bellingcat itself did its own frame‑by‑frame work on portions of the officer video, highlighting details such as the agent’s phone movements and apparent visibility of a camera app after the shooting ^[2]. FactCheck and other outlets flagged that while the Times’ synchronized frames suggest the vehicle was turning away, other experts and officials warn that video cannot reveal an officer’s subjective perception at the moment—meaning the footage informs the observable sequence but does not by itself resolve intent or fear claims ^[4].

4. Limitations, disputes, and why the difference in method matters

The practical difference between the Times’ multi-angle, synchronized forensic treatment and NBC’s single‑camera release matters because synchronization lets analysts test claims about wheel direction, agent positioning and timing in ways a standalone clip cannot; critics and some officials contest interpretations and emphasize that no video can read an actor’s mind, so the Times’ visual findings have been used politically by opposing sides and remain legally and investigatively contested ^{[1] [4] [2]}. Reporting limitations in the sources provided mean the precise technical methods (software used, frame rates normalized, chain‑of‑custody of each clip) are not fully documented here, and local and federal authorities dispute elements of the narrative even as multiple newsrooms and OSINT groups converge on many of the same observable frame‑by‑frame facts ^{[2] [1] [4]}.