Title: Forensic acoustic proof of SECOND shooter in the Las Vegas massacre Source:
[None] URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxmEFeKy8aI Published:Oct 11, 2017 Author:Mike Adams TheHealthRanger Post Date:2017-10-11 00:40:47 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:45763 Comments:148
"For example, if the microphone is adjacent to the victim (such as a 911 recording might be), the equation for determining the distance becomes:t=tb - ts= d/Vb- d/VsIf the muzzle blast duration obscures the sound of the bullet hitting the target, simple inspection of the sound waveform is insufficient. "
In response to your request regarding this accusation against an LV Police Officer:
I found/took their formula, built a spreadsheet, and plugged in 223 balistic data generated via shooterscalculator.com:
Important to note:
* Presently we don't have information regarding specificaly which weapons and amunition were used. So the ballistic data was generated with a guestimate 223 configuration.
* My DAW (Sonar) doesn't appear to have the capability of capturing a sound spectrogram like the ones the authors of the study produced; but after reading their commentary on the blast noise obscuring impact noise, I filtered the crowd noise, and filtered/looked alternately for the report and then the high energy impact sounds - and I revised T1 and T2 accordingly.
More accurate results could possibly be obtained if the corresponding burst sequence on the Taxi-Driver video is identified and aligned, as the taxi-driver's audio contains only the muzzle blast and echo. It doesn't have the crowd and impact noise to obscure the muzzle events.
Don't you find it a little odd that he doesn't present any actual data or audio?
I don't. He's presenting his numeric analysis which is indeed easy to understand, and playing audio clips would not impress the lay audience. Those who are in a position to verify what he says because they have the raw audio data he's working with can certainly confirm it on their own, if inclined.