United States News
See other United States News Articles
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: 45694
Comments: 148
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: VXH (#0)
Your image is king of vague. We have to trust the math you say you did. This is much more thorough and understandable.
Found this interesting video... ...by a kook. A kook who wants to make money off ads on YouBoob peddling CTs to even more gullible kooks.
I've listened to the first 20 mins of it, which seems to be a complete presentation of his case. I like that he's knowledgeable, or at least seems to be, in this field. But I think there's a flaw in his analysis, and that is that all the math is based on the premise that the second shooter was firing .223 rounds just as Paddock was. Adams even admits early in the video that the distance & shot report tables is different for different types of rounds. But it's already known that Paddock has 1-2 dozen different firearms in the room. Some were .223, but I think others were of differing calibers. So perhaps Paddock fired .223 rounds some of the time, but also switched to different rifles of higher or lower caliber which would have differing acoustic lag times at the same distance. Has Adams accounted for that possibility? There is also the speculative nature of matching bullet impact sounds with shot report acoustics. I.e you might hear on a recording 6 shot reports but only 5 bullet impacts, in which case determining which bullet impact sounds match which reports could be speculative, and if you get that wrong then you'll be wrong about the distance of the shooter. Paddock switching rifles might also account for the differing shot acoustic recordings from the taxi at the base of tho hotel.
...by a kook. A kook who wants to make money off ads on YouBoob peddling CTs to even more gullible kooks. When I first saw Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, chipping in on this, my first reaction was that when public figures try to demonstrate expertise in a field other than the field they are known for (health, in the case of Adams) it usually doesn't come off too well. But Adams does seems to speak authoritatively in this video. He does claim to be an avid shooter, his message seems to affirm his is knowledgeable about firearms.
But Adams does seems to speak authoritatively in this video. He does claim to be an avid shooter, his message seems to affirm his is knowledgeable about firearms. What isn't he an expert on? He spreads CTs and misinfo to ignorant people on: He claims he got diabetes at age 30 and cured himself. He claims ebola can be treated with herbal medicines, that Zika virus was carried by U.S. government genetically modified mosquitos, etc. Natural News is considered an extremely odious fake-news anti-science site. Mike Adams is a despicable con man. So we should not be surprised that he is peddling kookery about the Vegas shootings. We should only be surprised if he wasn't.
With the possible exception of the first item in that list, every else listed is certainly a health issue, so it's not like you've made a case of him trying to be an expert in everything. Personally I would probably agree with him on most of those items. Perhaps you don't like him for how he presents himself. If so, that's of course your prerogative. But on the point firearms, in the above video he does seem to show reasonable and authoritative knowledge, with the exception of the points of my own critique.
It is a weakness in his analysis, no doubt, but he does a good job of showing the calculation with a known round. I cannot adopt the conclusion of proof of a second shooter based upon the limits of the analysis, and the limits of my own knowledge. I believe his analysis for a selected round is sound, but the conclusion has insufficient support. To his credit, Adams recommends that the FBI do a triangulation study. This is done on site, not just in the lab. Get recordings of a discrete gunshot sound from multiple locations taken at the event and identify the locations and the time differences for when the same sound was recorded. That may be a bit of work for the FBI, but it can be done. Adams used the single source sound analysis, the available data. Add serveral more recording locations, and the time differential will act to locate the point(s) of origin. If cell phone location by geography is difficult, perhaps cell tower data or GPS could help pinpoint location at a specific time. When the submarine Scorpion went down in the Atlantic, it imploded or exploded, but in either case it made a loud noise underwater and sunk to the bottom. We had a series of sonar listening stations (now obsolete and closed) at Iceland, Canada, the USA and the Caribbean islands. They picked up the report at slightly different times, depending on how long it took the sound to travel to each of them. To find the sunken sub, a ship trailed a sonobuoy (a device which can make a loud noise) underwater and set it off (repeatedly). We would all record the sound and HQ would check the time differences. When the time differences at the various stations matched the actual event, the sonobuoy was over the sunken sub. It was a lengthy trial and error process. If several recording devices can have their location fixed at the time of the shooting, the same principle will apply to find the location of gunfire. If a gunfire noise from the 32nd floor cannot replicate the time differential at the several recording locations, they must look elsewhere until the sound arrives at the various recording locations with the known time differences. Notably, many internet Marines and Army types appear certain that they hear the sound of a belt fed machine gun.
In this video, the initial single shots are captured clearly. Las Vegas Shooting First Actual Shots - Rare Tall Ace of Spades Most footage doesn't capture the real, initial, non automatic shots shown here that the shooter probably used as test shots before using the bump stock and continuous fire when the next song starts. People are clearly trying to leave the scene shortly after the initial shots which start at 3:12.
You sound like you work for the government like a pm I got years ago.
And you've hung around with LF's kooks long enough that you are starting to sound like and think like a kook. But then, science and math are hard. And kooking is easy.
Not really. They're just time consuming to learn.
No, they really are hard. The universe is not as we would like it to be. And it stubbornly refuses to behave as we think it should.
Theoretical physics is hard. Ballistics and forensic chemistry are tedious, but not really hard.
Well, the Natural News guy should be able to help out the FBI with both. Did you know that he has two gas chromatographs? Take that, FBI.
BINGO~!
The speculation I've read is that those first isolated shots are Paddock's attempt to blow up the Jet fuel tanks... which he hit - whilst failing to understand that reality doesn't work like Hollywood's explosively delusional depiction of it.
[duplicate post]
Don't you find it a little odd that he doesn't present any actual data or audio? The model audio he's describing (without presenting any actual data) fits the scenario where the microphone is adjacent to the target: [Using Sound of Target Impact for Acoustic Reconstructions of Shooting Events] http:// www.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf "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/Vs If 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: You didn't have time to watch the video yet. Debunk it please. https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=78#C78 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.
I did see a report that they found tracer bullets in the suite but no indication he had fired a single round of tracer ammo. Also, I saw another report (CNN) that he had and used "incendiary rounds" to shoot at the fuel tank. To be honest, I'm not sure what an incendiary round is or what it is supposed to be used for. Anyway, I searched around and it seems that incendiary rounds are intended to create a substantial visual display of sparks to illuminate the exact position that a bullet struck. So it is a kind of tracer round apparently. American Specialty Ammo: Starburst Ammo Starburst Ammunition STARBURST AMMUNITION IS BASICALLY AN INCENDIARY ROUND LOADED WITH 9MM LUGER PKG. OF 10 .40 S&W PKG. OF 10 .45 ACP PKG. OF 10 .223 REMINGTON (5.56 NATO) PKG. OF 10 .30M1 CARBINE PKG. OF 10 .308 WINCHESTER (7.62 NATO) PKG. OF 10 .30-06 SPRINGFIELD PKG. OF 10 7.62 X 39MM RUSSIAN PKG. OF 10 NOT AVAILABLE IN New York City; Marin, Napa, Ventura and Yolo counties, CA; Cook County, IL; D.C.; MA; all of Alaska; all of Flordia and All of Hawaii Price: $35.99 Special Order Only. Contact for Availability
And he doesn't present a single sonogram - which is what the actual experts use to distinguish rifle report from impact sounds. http:// www.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf And yep - we don't know yet which weapons / ammunition were fired in association with the audio events. Having that knowledge is essential to correctly computing the ballistic data - which include the changes in velocity he's using as "proof". He's presented no "proof".
I think the guesswork that the initial shots were the incendiary rounds fired at the fuel tanks is pretty good. Then he changed to his main shooting window and used the bump-fire stock guns to open up on the crowd. He wanted a big fire, possibly to panic (or just distract) the crowd or to draw off first responders. When that didn't work, he moved quickly into massacre mode. I'm trying to decide if Stone has upgraded by switching from the Niburu/Planet X kooks to this Natural News kook. I think he has. This is a somewhat higher grade of kookery IMO.
He presents the process convincingly - WITHOUT any actual data. Where's the audio/data/sonograms? 300k+ clicks on his youboob channel though. Shyster.
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.
No, he clearly has not proved anything, and the vid should not have been labeled as such. But he has made an argument that there was a second shooter. Proving or disproving that argument would require more work.
Google already delisted his websites entirely. It's only a matter of time before his kooking will get him demonetized on YouBoob also. Google likes selling ads but there is a limit to the kinds of kooking they will tolerate, especially from a certifiable kook like Adams.
If he had sonograms he could present them. Why doesn't he? "raw audio data" is not required. The audio on the youtube videos, though compressed and degraded somewhat, would still be sufficient. But you do need the ability/software to produce a detailed sonogram. Does he have it or not?
Given the "video game" motive, seeing a big fuel tank explode into flames would be a "cool" thing. But it was nighttime and it was at extremely long range, so he would have been uncertain that his shots were even hitting the tanks. Without any immediate gratification after a few shots, he turned his attention back to people.
I already explained a reasonable motive.
His argument/model is dependent upon: A: Ballistic parameters he pulled out of his wherever Please fill in the params on this balistic calculator with the correct REAL values? http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi You can't. He can't. All anyone can do presently is guess. B: Data from Audio that he doesn't present as part of documenting his methodology - which for this kind of sound would require a spectogram to differentiate the muzzle blast from the local sonic cracks and/or local impact sound events. http:// www.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf What he presented on the whiteboard is an example of an amplitude chart like this one I made for audio from a video recorded from the target zone. That's NOT a spectogram.
Based on numbers he pulled from where? Playing the audio clips AND showing the associated sonograms would have been possible ASSUMING he's got the expertise and capability he's claiming. Drawing a model on a whiteboard isn't "proof" of anything. His title "Forensic acoustic proof" is a material misrepresentation of fact - aka FRAUD. "proof" requires EVIDENCE, ie: DATA.
If you two have a personal dislike for Adams, even if very strong, that's perfectly fine and legitimate. But it would be reasonable to add that disclaimer when criticizing specific things he does, such as the video above. That Google has imposed sanctions against him of whatever sort doesn't impress me, as Google is hardly the standard bearer of all that is right, good and honest. Adams may be wrong about some things, and probably is as we all are. But personally, I think he's right about a lot of things too.
No, with a scope, he would have seen when he hit the tanks. We know that two of these shots did hit the tank, one bullet penetrating and one bouncing off. He undoubtedly was using a scoped rifle and would not have missed a 6' fireball when the bullets hit the tank. He shot, hit the tank a couple of times, concluded it wasn't going to explode, then moved on to his main target. That security guard panicked him, ruined his timetable all around.
His title "Forensic acoustic proof" is a material misrepresentation of fact. He's claiming to have "proof" that he doesn't present - luring folks into clicking on his video, which is monetized. That's FRAUD.
That might just mean that you're gullible. Remember what P.T. Barnum always said.
Remember this is, for all intents, a combat situation. Time if of the essence. If the tanks were all he was targeting, then fine, but if his goal is death and mayhem, taking that kind of shooting care costs time, and would be counter productive to his goal. He takes a couple shots. Nothing? Okay forget it, he concludes, and resumes targeting people. I think we agree on that. I hadn't heard he used incendiary rounds on the tanks. I agree on this also. The guard was not part of the plan. Perhaps this guy had everything "over planned" and did not allow for the possibility of anything not going as he expected it to, and once that happened, he couldn't handle it. He was smart enough to do all this meticulous planning, but failed to realize that in an uncontrolled environment, unexpected things can happen during plan execution.
Maybe I am. I would say though that the most gullible people are the people who think they are not.
I'm not sure exactly how that Bell curve is distributed. Everyone is gullible about something. But a known grifter and CT peddler is another thing. That's a snake oil salesman. Notice how Adams switched from his usual baloney and now presents himself as a ballistics expert. And he's mostly just rehashing other CT videos that he found on YouBoob. He even admits it.
Maybe I am. In the context of a postmodern "culture" where significant numbers of individuals are so ignorant of (or even repelled by) science -- that they "believe" they can change their sex.... You're not alone. How did that happen?
My first reaction when I saw the "Health Ranger" chiming in on the LV shooting was, as I pointed out, that he should stick to the field he's known for and not venture out into unrelated fields. It reminded me of G Edward Griffin, author of the book on the Federal Reserve. Seemingly well researched in that area, he apparently also made some public claims about how to fight cancer. Mentioning it to a guy I knew who had cancer issues (who has since died) the response was that Griffin should stick with federal reserve topics. Still, I gave the video a listen and he does claim to be an avid shooting enthusiast. And apart from my own critique of the assumption that all shots used the same caliber weapon, his presentation does seem authoritative and free of "flat earth" type of argument fallacy. I prefer to judge arguments people make without regard to the reputation of the person arguing them. Obviously there are limits when someone has already ruined their reputation like so many forum posters have, but still, that's my preference. With Adams, apparently he's already crossed that line with you, but not for me. Which is fine.
He's a buzzword and bullshyte artist. I've cleaned up after more than one self-processed software "architect" whose work product failed to produce results - despite being able to regurgitate the latest fashionable vocabulary. "Can you not see the emperor's new clothes?"
I prefer to judge their arguments based upon actual data. Please fill in the params on this balistic calculator with the correct REAL values? http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi You can't - and neither can Mr."Healthranger". Thus, his buzzword and bullshyte "analysis" does not compile into "PROOF" - and his title is misleading, fraudulent, falsely advertised, click bait
Comments (43 - 148) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
(Edited)
Author: Mike Adams TheHealthRanger
#4. To: A K A Stone, Nolu Chan (#0)
#5. To: Tooconservative (#3)
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
When I first saw Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, chipping in on this, my first reaction was that when public figures try to demonstrate expertise in a field other than the field they are known for (health, in the case of Adams) it usually doesn't come off too well.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
#8. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#4)
But I think there's a flaw in his analysis, and that is that all the math is based on the premise that the second shooter was firing .223 rounds just as Paddock was. Adams even admits early in the video that the distance & shot report tables is different for different types of rounds.
Paddock switching rifles might also account for the differing shot acoustic recordings from the taxi at the base of tho hotel.
#9. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#0)
Published on Oct 7, 2017
#10. To: Tooconservative (#3)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
You sound like you work for the government like a pm I got years ago.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
But then, science and math are hard.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)
No, they really are hard. The universe is not as we would like it to be. And it stubbornly refuses to behave as we think it should.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
Ballistics and forensic chemistry are tedious, but not really hard.
#16. To: Tooconservative (#3)
by a kook. A kook who wants to make money off ads on YouBoob peddling CTs to even more gullible kooks.
#17. To: nolu chan (#9)
(Edited)
First Actual Shots
#18. To: A K A Stone (#2)
(Edited)
#19. To: A K A Stone (#2)
(Edited)
This is much more thorough and understandable.
#20. To: VxH (#17)
The speculation I've read is that those first isolated shots are Paddock's attempt to blow up the Jet fuel tanks... which he hit - but failed to understand that reality doesn't work like Hollywood's explosive version of it.
TITANIUM FLAKES. UPON STRIKING A RELATIVELY SOLID OBJECT, A FLASH IS
PRODUCED ALONG WITH A SHOWER OF SPARKS IN A 6-8 FOOT DIAMETER AREA.
THIS ROUND CAN SERVE AS A SPOTTER ROUND, MUCH LIKE THE INCENDIARY
TYPE AMMUNITION. AMMUNITION IS NON-CORROSIVE AND MEETS SAAMI
SPECIFICATIONS. CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED WHEN FIRING THESE ROUNDS
TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL BRUSH FIRES. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THEY BE
USED AT AN APPROVED FIRING RANGE. CHECK YOUR STATE LAWS CONCERNING
LAWFUL FIRING OF THIS AMMUNITION.
#21. To: Pinguinite, Aka Stone, Nolu Chan, TooConservative (#4)
(Edited)
There is also the speculative nature of matching bullet impact sounds with shot report acoustics
#22. To: VxH (#21)
(Edited)
And yep - we don't know yet which weapons / ammunition were fired in association with the audio events.
He's presented no "proof".
#23. To: Tooconservative (#22)
This is a somewhat higher grade of kookery IMO.
#24. To: VxH (#19)
Don't you find it a little odd that he doesn't present any actual data or audio?
#25. To: VxH (#21)
He's presented no "proof".
#26. To: VxH (#23)
300k+ clicks on his youboob channel though. Shyster.
#27. To: Pinguinite (#24)
I don't.
they have the raw audio data
#28. To: Tooconservative (#22)
He wanted a big fire, possibly to panic (or just distract) the crowd or to draw off first responders. When that didn't work, he moved quickly into massacre mode.
#29. To: VxH (#27)
Why doesn't he?
#30. To: Pinguinite (#25)
(Edited)
But he has made an argument that there was a second shooter.
#31. To: Pinguinite (#24)
(Edited)
his numeric analysis
playing audio clips would not impress the lay audience.
#32. To: VxH, TooConservative (#31)
His title "Forensic acoustic proof" is a material misrepresentation of fact - aka FRAUD.
#33. To: Pinguinite (#28)
Given the "video game" motive, seeing a big fuel tank explode into flames would be a "cool" thing. But it was nighttime and it was at extremely long range, so he would have been uncertain that his shots were even hitting the tanks. Without any immediate gratification after a few shots, he turned his attention back to people.
#34. To: Pinguinite (#32)
(Edited)
#35. To: Pinguinite (#32)
Adams may be wrong about some things, and probably is as we all are. But personally, I think he's right about a lot of things too.
#36. To: Tooconservative (#33)
No, with a scope, he would have seen when he hit the tanks.
That security guard panicked him, ruined his timetable all around.
#37. To: Tooconservative (#35)
That might just mean that you're gullible.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#37)
Maybe I am. I would say though that the most gullible people are the people who think they are not.
#39. To: Pinguinite, tooconservative, a k a stone, nolu chan (#37)
(Edited)
#40. To: Tooconservative (#38)
Notice how Adams switched from his usual baloney and now presents himself as a ballistics expert.
#41. To: Pinguinite (#40)
his presentation does seem authoritative
#42. To: Pinguinite (#40)
(Edited)
I prefer to judge arguments people make without regard to the reputation of the person arguing them
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]