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:48784 Comments:148
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.
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.
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.
Paddock switching rifles might also account for the differing shot acoustic recordings from the taxi at the base of tho hotel.
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.
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.
He likely used other calibers than .223 too, which makes his conclusion of a second shooter worthless. Even if he used .223 there's no guarantee that all of the ammo was 55gr bullets.
He's proved nothing. He's cherry picked one caliber, bullet weight, barrel length, twist and loading, to get hits to his crappy website.
I'm not saying that there wasn't more than one shooter, only that Adams hasn't proved it with his phony analysis.
