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: 45732
Comments: 148
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
#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.
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 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.
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.
#34. To: Pinguinite (#32)
(Edited)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#19. To: A K A Stone (#2)
(Edited)
This is much more thorough and understandable.
#24. To: VxH (#19)
Don't you find it a little odd that he doesn't present any actual data or audio?
#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.
Replies to Comment # 32.
#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.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]