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: 39071
Comments: 148
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nolu chan, VXH, buckeroo, tooconservative, cz82, redleghunter (#0)
Found this interesting video.
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
I'm unsure if they believe they can "change their sex" so much as they believe they already are, internally, of the opposite gender. It's not like they wake up one day and decide that they want to try something different by being a girl/boy. Someone posted either here or on 4um a theory on at least the prevalence contemporary homosexuality, and that is that birth control pills might carry some of the blame. The theory goes, and supposedly has been demonstrated with rats, is that when a woman takes birth control pills, it screws up her hormones to have the desired effect of preventing pregnancy. When she comes off them, it takes time for her body to recover, but if she gets pregnant too soon, then the fetus is affected abnormally. This offspring suffers no direct effects however. But then the chance of that child's children (i.e. the grand child of the woman who took BC pills) being homosexual is greatly increased. Whether that's a cause or not, it does basically serve as a reminder that we do live in a chemical world which didn't exist 100 years ago, and enormous chemical exposure could be a factor in human development. Obviously homosexuality has existed for thousands of years so it couldn't be the only cause of it. Now on transgenderism, I could give my own theory about that but it would be spiritually based, and though it makes a lot of sense to me, it's perhaps not welcome, so I'll not bother suggesting it.
they believe they already are, internally, of the opposite gender. Meanwhile, in reality land: XX, XY, (and for a very small geneticaly malformed minority who are XXY etc) other . Every Human is ONE of those at birth and, despite the latest fashionable Anti-Fa-LGBTQXYZWherever Transhumanist- Postgenderist, Newpeak - that. IS. Reality. XX + XX = FAIL XY + XY = FAIL XX + XY = Human
As I see it, we are more than "human". We are souls living in human bodies, and the soul makes up the bulk of our personality. If one believes that our human DNA defines all that we are, then yes, no further discussion is required.
Well, several billion years of BINARY natural selection speaks for itself. YMMV. XX + XX = FAIL XY + XY = FAIL XX + XY = Human
Well, in the case of humans, true. But it's not true with all biological life, which if you subscribe to evolution, should perhaps be noted. If I understood correctly, with some reptiles, they can have XX or XY or YX or YY chromes. If it's XY or YX, it's female. If XX or YY it's male. One theory about how remote islands in the Pacific were populated suggests that a single female could cross the ocean and make landfall. Then it can have offspring without mating, meaning the offspring are all male, having either XX or YY chromes. Then the offspring could mate with their mother, generating both males and females. Kinda gross by human standards but hey, if that's what gets the species proliferated... Just goes to show that relying on DNA XY chromes may not ultimately be an authoritative position.
There's more too. Turtles turn out male or female depending on the temperature of the eggs, so it's not directly DNA determined. Oysters are transgender, switching between male and female in a couple weeks time. So in nature, the line between male and female is not very straight, (no pun intended).
But *you're* not always "peddling" a ridiculous discredited gubmint's, "Nothing to see here" CYA BS? That seems awfully "k00ky" to me. The question here is whether it is plausible to consider elements within The Swamp are willing to do something/ANYTHING to sabotage the 2A or US Security in order to promote *their* agenda. After all, they operate in secrecy. With impunity and immunity. And appear married to the DNC, the MSM, and UN. As a sensible person, I'm sure you can do the math there. Q: Whenever there are theories and heavy-duty circumstantial evidence that demonstrate *plausible* explanations for the inexplicable, why must you reflexively ALWAYS dismiss it? I'm hardly the only one who's always found that conspicuously odd. But since this isn't FR, a difference of opinion is expected. However, there's doubt you've even delved a hair deep into analyzing this case (other than buying the gubmint's scripted SOS and MSM obfuscation.) I suppose you believe TWA Flight 800 was just some mid-air "mishap" despite eyewitnesses to the contrary? OR...0bama's Fast & Furious Op, the Benghazi Op, or IRS harassment of Tea Party organizers were just CTs too, right? Well guess what? PROVEN: The SAME goob you respect and claim must be trusted on their version of events and speaks the truth...has as a rule conducted bogus investigation, lies and spins. REPEATEDLY. This same gubmint whose version of "truth" YOU trust with all your heart is the VERY SAME gubmint whose Deep State and Swamp-Muck policies have over the decades purposely exposed regular Americans to damaging/fatal radiation, disease, and political saboteurs (Muzzies); protected and shielded the Klintoons and their shenanigans; AND made it crystal clear President Trump/MAGA = BAD, and Comrade 0bammy/Klintoon/Globalist-First = GOOD. So...help me here. WHY can or should this goob be considered credible or trust-worthy any more than Alex Jones? By what basis should we believe them? Over "investigations" about anything? Especially given the last 8 years under a Marxist/Alinsky-Disciple whose lack of historical transcripts and past, un-confirmed BC, collateral coincidental deaths (a la Klintoon), and elections are highly suspicious to begin with? Since 1992 and Bubba's ridiculous election win over a sandbagging Poppy, it truly take the suspension of ALL logic to accept Swamp Critter versions of "troof" as gospel.
I'm not going to explore all these brave new worlds of kookery that you enjoy so much. Kook on.
Much easier that way, eh? Thought not.
I will note that your anger at my rejection of this particular Vegas shooting kookery has, as is typical, immediately cast you into your general case of arguing for much broader and ever more expansive kookeries of all kinds. Citing more kookeries doesn't actually help your case in proving a particular kookery, like this one from Natural News. But you'd know that if you weren't kooking out.
Las Vegas shooting: An in-depth analysis
I wouldn't waste an emotion like "anger" on your self-voluntary shilling for gubmint narratives. It's more like incredulity. The same emotion as with any zombie-fied Cultist... That said, your reflexive reaction is typical of one whose "reality" is more wishful thinking than anything else. Maybe that whole, "Santa is not real. REALLY, son!" spiel you heard in high school scarred you :-(
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.
WHOA! Do his go to ELEVEN?
They can go as high as he wants.
WHOA! Do his go to ELEVEN? Hehe... A reference to "Spinal Tap", no doubt. Still funny....
Uhuh. But don't tell the pronoun-challenged Transumanist-Postgenderists that... in California.
'Zactly!
That's FRAUD. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en YouTube uses technology and policy enforcement processes to determine if a video is eligible for advertising. We continually work hard to make our algorithms as accurate as possible and to understand nuances, including for categories like music, gaming, and news. Our intention is to treat each video based on context, including content that is clearly comedic, educational, or satirical in nature. If the following describes any portion of your video or video metadata, including the title, thumbnail or tags, then the video may not be eligible for advertising under the AdSense Program Policies. In some cases, YouTube may also choose not to show ads from all advertisers or all ad formats. [...]
Have you actually tried to google it? Funny, entering healthranger.com into google yields this link. It it supposed to yield no result?
You obviously don't understand what delisting is.
[ posted to wrong thread ]
It means it won't show up in a google search. It is removed from the index. If it is not in the index, it cannot be found in the index. If it is still there, it is not delisted.
If KlingonBurger.com got delisted then they wouldn't show up in a search for "healthy burgers in gamma quadrant 4" That kinda how it works?
You still pushing the teleportion echo theory I see. Paddock teleporting around shooting and your Klingon pic there to teleport him back and forth as he pleases.
Paddock teleporting around shooting and your Klingon pic there to teleport him back and forth as he pleases. There's as much evidence for that as there is "PROOF!" that Paddock wasn't the only murderer.
Agreed I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Supposedly, they will produce an official timeline and more complete official reporting sometime tomorrow. Should be interesting. The rest of this amateur hour sleuthing via YouBoob videos is just a distraction.
If I didn't help process the scene or at least respond to the incident, I'd never spend a single minute trying to GUESS what actually happened. Some people get a chubby out of that shit. I've responded and or handled many high profile crime scenes... and over the following weeks until the full incident is reported by LE, I've heard the most retarded conspiracy theories... when I know what actually happened. It's not even laughable. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
A lot of the CT peddlers know full well they're hawking complete BS. But their objective is monetizing videos on YouBoob and driving clicks to their clickbaity websites. We're seeing a steady stream of these frauds and their fanbois here at LF, from the Niburu/Planet X people to that Health Ranger idiot. So of course only idiocy can result from discussing any of it. There are a lot of unanswered questions about Vegas. Hopefully, some of that will be cleared up tomorrow if they produce their big timeline and evidence dump as promised.
Adams assumes a shooter using an AR-15 with .223 Remington 55 grain ammo. He states 20% humidity. He states a 925 m/s bullet velocity which is ~3034.8 fps. He specifies a 16.5" barrel, but a 3034.8 fps initial velocity would seem to indicate a 20" barrel or different ammo. I believe the white board has an error. The flight time should be 0.532s, not 0.528s. It lists both the 400 yard flight time and the lag time as 0.528s. This would mean the bullet velocity was precisely double the speed of sound, and that double 0.528s, or 1.056s would be the 400 yard travel time for the speed of sound. The time of sound travel for 400 yards at 1130 fps is 1.062. http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/ He cites his use of a gundata ballistics chart for travel time. gundata indicates for 400 yards, the time of travel is 5.32s, specifying a standard 55gr Remington .223 bullet leaving the barrel at 3,215fps. Adams also specified a 16.5 inch barrel, but it seems an AR-15 with a 16.5 barrel does not achieve 3,215 initial velocity. Testing with different barrel lengths indicates an AR-15, 16.5" barrel, with Remington .223 ammo, does not achieve 3,034.8 muzzle ("initial") velocity. With a 20" barrel, the same setup gets 3,071 fps muzzle velocity. A 25" barrel gets it up to 3,221 fps muzzle velocity. A 16.5" with Federal M193/55 gets 3,187 fps muzzle velocity. http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballistic-chart/remington_charts/223rembal.htm A ballistics chart indicates that a Remington .223 will not get the stated bullet velocity. Assuming the shots were fired from room 32135, and that end of the Mandalay Bay Hotel was 1208 feet from the base of the bandstand, and that a bullet struck the pavement at or near the base of the bandstand, the long side a right triangle would be 1208 feet and the short side would be the height of room 32135. The building claims a height of 480 feet and 44 stories, for an average of 10.91 feet per story. The 32nd floor would be 338.21 feet up. (31 x 10.91, base of floor 1 has zero height). With sides of 1208 and 338.21, the hypotenuse would be 1254.45 feet. The actual distance the bullet traveled would be more than that as it would not follow a straight path, but would follow an arc. Using estimates of distance to striking the venue surface of ~1250 feet, and detected lag times of 0.559 sec and 0.374 sec, the slower bullet made the 0.374 lag time; the faster bullet arrived .559 sec before the muzzle blast. At 1130 fps, the sound would cover 1250 feet in about 1.106 seconds. A bullet making the 1250 ft trip .559 sec before the sound, made the trip in .547 sec. A bullet making the 1250 ft trip .374 sec before the sound, made the trip in .732 sec. 1250 feet in .547 sec is an avg velocity of ~2236 fps. 1250 feet in .732 sec is an avg velocity of ~1708 fps. This assumes both shots were taken from the same location. What bullets were used can be ascertained by collecting the bullets. What was left in the room should be inventoried, along with what guns were in the room. http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?267715-308-Ammo-Help/page2 Most mfgs recommend a minimum velocity of 1800 fps for proper expansion. The so called "magic number" associate with elk hunting is 1200 lb ft Energy. Below that is risky and I prefer 1400 lb ft as my personal standard. Although every gun is different the ammo mfg. Will put their tested numbers out for their loads. According to Federal their TBT 165 gr out of a 308 maintains 1939 fps and 1377 lb ft at 500 yards. Mathematically that should do the job as long as the bullet hits it's mark. Federal lists the same weight game King at 1708 FPS and 1069 ft lb at 500 yards. Obviously not the best option. If you keep 400 yards and in either a 150 or 165 gr factory loaded bonded round should work fine on elk. You just need to find the one that goes exactly where you want it to every time you press the trigger. This would suggest the possibility of the 1708 fps round being a .308 (or whatever else gets around 1708 fps at 400 - 450 yards. http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/ [...] .223 Remington, Remington Metal Case, 55gr. 400 yards This ballistics chart indicates .532 seconds for 400 yards, at 1588 velocity. .532 seconds would indicate 2255.6 average velocity for the 400 yards, and the velocity of the bullet leaving the barrel is specified at 3215 fps.
Keyword: "SHOULD" Based on ballistics data, there are apparently unexplained inconsistencies. Now how can the science be explained away? (Oh wait -- it was already done in spades over 911.) Why should we expect the same investigative agencies who ignored every shred of slam-dunk evidence regarding Hitlery (on a myriad of rock-solid federal charges) would EVER honestly investigate this case? Especially IF The Truth is politically incendiary? Here's the bottom line: Alphabet Agencies have a severe credibility problem that dates back at LEAST to Flight 800. Or even further -- past The Keith Hernandez Magic Loogie Incident, way back to JFK. This Cred-Gap was on full display during Hitlery's Hearing(s), as well as during their "RUSSIA-TRUMP RUSSIA-TRUMP RUSSIA-TRUMP!!" obsession and charade (that still percolates.) We will NEVER get any definite truth out of these people on this case -- especially because THE Truth exposes every OTHER lie The Sheeple have been told, and because The Usual Suspects are involved.
In the Kennedy case, they not only sold a magic bullet, they sold that they took Oswald into custody but kept no reord of any question asked or any answer given, and Oswald was killed while in police custody by mafia good Jack Ruby who just happened to walk in off the street into the police HQ where Oswald was kept, and just happened to arrive as they were walking Oswald to a car for transfer, and Ruby felt so bad for Jackie that he just pulled out his gun and killed Oswald live, on national television.
DOOD! You are so anal you MUST be a reloader/target shooter. If not,you owe it to yourself to become one. You were BORN to be one. Come home,to where you belong. Chances are you will develop a love-hate relationship with trap and skeet shooting,too. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Well you're smarter than I am.
All numbers he pulled out of his arse? Plus there's the little problem that he doesn't present any actual audio evidence.
Kind of like your meaningless image that proves nothing. I'm not saying there was one gunman or many. Just that your image doesn't prove shit.
My meme references, measures, and explains actual audio. An analysis of two sequential burts of gunfire between: =============== Conclusion: Burst B is NOT two weapons being fired simultaneously. It is one weapon being fired at a more distant target. The longer distance, observable in the period between Burst B's T1 and T2, manifests a corresponding longer period of reverb. It is the reverb that is being incorrectly interpreted as a second weapon (and second shooter) firing at the same time. Research resources:
Plus there's the little problem that he doesn't present any actual audio evidence. The audio he used is presented. Your chartoon is an absurdity.
LOL. He scribbled on a whiteboard. The amplitude graphs of the audio referenced on my meme can be reproduced by anyone with minimal tools. It's REPRODUCIBLE - that's what differentiates valid science from conspiratorial buffoonery. Show us the actual amplitude graphs or STFU.
That you reproduce meaningless bullshit is meaningful, but not as you intend.
Your chartoon lists "Test for Echo" and gives links to the Taxi Driver video. Echo has nothing to do with measurements at the target site. The methodology you link, and cite, is for measurements at the target site, only. It uses the sound of bullet strikes on the venue surface, and the sound wave of the muzzle blast reaching the same recording device, not any echo. They are recorded on the same nearby microphone at line of sight, not at two different locations, not line of sight, and over 300 feet apart. You are absolutely clueless. Here are your exact words about your chartoon being about two different sounds from the Taxi Driver Video: I used the same speed I used in my other analysis (appended below) - based upon an air temperature of 72 degrees Then I calculated the difference in time between the last bullet sound (T1) and the corresponding last report sound (T2). [graphic omitted] T2-T1 = time the report traveled = 1.07 1.07 * FPS of 1130.8 = 1208.8 [graphic omitted] An analysis of two sequential burts of gunfire between: =============== Here you are citing times sounds are heard in the taxi, at least 340 feet from the shooter and around the corner, and the time en echo returned from who knows where, by an unknown path, back to the taxi, still at least 340 feet from the shooter. Nothing can be accurately calculated with this data. T2 - T1 is not the time some report traveled. It is time difference between the time of the bullet arrival report and the sound arrival report. If your dippy calculation were correct, and the bullet were subsonic, T1 would be larger than T2, the the time some mythical report traveled would be a negative number. T2 - T1 is larger or smaller depending on the difference between the speed of the bullet and the speed of sound. If the difference of the flight time of the bullet and sound at 1200 feet were .2 seconds, you would calculate (T2 - T1) the muzzle report traveled 400 yards in .2 seconds. The speed of sound would still take 1.06 seconds to travel 1200 feet. Regardless of what T2 - T1 indicates, the muzzle report will travel 1200 feet in 1.06 seconds. The difference between the two report times indicates the difference in the velocity of time and the velocity of the bullet. If the sound took 1.06 seconds, the distance was 1200 feet. With the known distance, the velocity of the bullet can be calculated. NOTE: "1.07 * FPS of 1130.8 = 1208.8" is incorrect. 1.07 * 1130.8 = 1209.956. NOTE: In the next mention FPS is 1130 ft per second at 72 degrees. NOTE: If you are measuring time between two different gunshots, rather than a shot and its own echo, you cannot derive distance. You would be measuring the time between two shots, saying nothing of distance about either one. The sounds are all from the Taxi Lady recording. These sounds do not give the aiming point, or point of origin of the shots. These sounds give the time sounds were recorded at the taxi. A sound that traveled 1.07 seconds at the speed of sound went 1,209.1 feet. (1,130 * 1.07). You cannot measure the Echo Distance from the aiming point back to the point of origin as there is no recording at the point of origin, the point of origin being the 32nd floor (supposedly). Both links go to the taxi video. The Echo Distance is from the point the sound reflected back, to the taxi location where it was recorded, following the path of the sound at ground level back to the taxi. What is recorded on the Taxi Lady video is the sound that traveled from the 32nd floor to the taxi, and whatever may have come from elsewhere as a sound reflected back. For a sound and its echo to show up on the taxi video at a 1.07 second interval, it had to travel to a reflective surface and back in 1.07 seconds, going a total distance of 1,209.1 feet. The event venue was about 400 yards away. For any recorded echo, the sound of the shot had to travel to the taxi, and the sound also had to travel from the 32nd floor to a reflecting surface and come back to the taxi. If the echo came from the venue area, 400 yards away, the echoed sound had to travel 400 yards to a reflective surface, then turn around and travel at least 400 yards, if the path were unobstructed at ground level, to the taxi location. If 1,209.1 feet were one way, the round trip out and back to the 32nd floor would be about 2,418.2 feet. The path back to the taxi, if unobstructed would be somewhat shorter, as 1,209.1 would be the hypotenuse of a triangle, with the distance back to the taxi being the long side of the right triangle, if unobstructed. Any obstructions at ground level would cause the sound to take an indirect path back to the taxi. You can make pretty graphics, and wonderful word salads, and throw around terms like relativity, but you cannot do simple calculation. Your analysis is pretty, but it is complete bullshit. No echo traveled to the venue and returned in 1.07 seconds. For a sound recorded in the taxi, there can be no corresponding echo of that sound recorded 1.07 seconds later in the taxi, if the echo came from the venue area. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/02/us/mandalay-bay-vegas-shooting.html New York Times Here is where 400 yards or 1200 feet come from. It is an estimated distance between Mandalay Bay and the Harvest Festival stage, at ground level, based on a Google image. As for your bullshit figure of 1209 feet distance for the bullet, it has a major problem. The approximate 400 yards you are using as known distance was measured at ground level from a google image. In the scenario where the gunman is at the 32nd floor, and floors average 10.9 feet, the gunman is about 338 feet in the air. You would have 338 feet be the short side of a right triangle, where the hypotenuse is 1209 feet. The long side of the right triangle, representing distance at ground level would be 1,160.79 feet. a2 + b2 = c2 3382 + x2 = 12092 114244 + x2 = 1461681 x2 = 1461681 - 114244 x2 = 1347437 x = 1160.79 feet. 50 feet here, 50 feet there, pretty soon it affects your calculations.
That's right. What part of TWO. SEPARATE. ANALYSIS. are you failing to comprehend?
The amplitude graphs are reproducible by anyone who has simple tools and access to the video on Youtube. Where's yours?
What part of TWO idiotic analyses don't you understand?
Proving imbeciles can reproduce. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Your chartoons, with your hilarious analysis, are entertaining, sort of like the scientific sounding youtubers preaching flat Earth theory.
The amplitude graphs are reproducible by anyone who has simple tools and access to the video on Youtube. Where's yours? { shrug } Maybe you just don't have what it takes.
On your spreadsheet chartoon, notice that you calculate T = Tb - Ts. You calculate elapsed time as the time it took the bullet to travel, minus the time it took the sound to travel. As the bullet is supersonic, and sound is a constant, the sound would travel 400 yards in 1.06s and the bullet would travel the 400 yards in less than 1.06s. Subtracting 1.06 from a smaller number will always yield a negative number. At 1200 feet, you actually calculate Tb as 0.448578s, and Ts as 1.062s and calculate the T as -0.6126, negative 0.6126 seconds. The average donkey could recognize that something is wrong when the result is negative time. Just what do you think happens in negative 0.6126 seconds? You could at least recognize that if you get a negative number, you have stated the required formula backwards, and you proceeded to perform the calculation backwards, and present the bass ackwards result of your understanding of the study you looked at. You've got what it takes to make bullets travel in negative time. Your brain apparently has zero amplitude.
>>at 1200 feet, you actually calculate Tb as 0.448578s, and Ts as 1.062s and calculate the T as -0.6126, negative 0.6126 seconds. 0.448578 is the ballistic projectile time. 1.062 is the time to travel the same distance at the speed of sound The MEASURED, absolute value, of the Ellapsed Time difference, per the audio amplitude graph... ...between the Last Bullet sound event and the Last Report sound event is 0.689655 Now, ask your donkey - what distance does that MEASURED absolute time difference correspond to on the chart?
No Absolute value is ever expressed as a negative number. Had your undisclosed formula for the last column of your spreadsheet included code to express an absolute value, your spreadsheet results would not appear as negative numbers. But your spreadsheet displays negative numbers and you did not even question it or fix your spreadsheet. The results should all be positive, like this: d = distance 400 yards, 1200 feet Column 1 = d/FPS = time in seconds Row 1 = directly inserted data. Data display is set to show 3 decimal places. Row 2 = spreadsheet formulas The formulas for Row 2 are dragged down to generate Rows 3-30.
>>No Absolute value is ever expressed as a negative number. =========== Since we KNOW from the observed audio Vb is supersonic, we can treat the difference between Tb and Ts as Absolute. Range corresponds to the ABSOLUTE value of the difference in time.
And BTW, You're not even reading from the relevant part of the paper - where the microphone adjacent to the victim scenario is discussed. http://ww w.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf That's the same formula I have in my illustration:
I know. They have a spreadsheet function for that. It has been around since Lotus 123 and Quatro. ABS(number).
Yes, but in this case the ABS is implied in knowledge of what the spreadsheet is actually calculating. If you applied ABS(Tb-Ts-) the chart would loose the information regarding whether the Vb was super-sonic or not, which the negative numbers conveniently tell us. The author's formula works just fine without your tweakage. http://ww w.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf And that IS the same formula I have in my illustration:
Why do you keep posting this chartoon when all your data is not only wrong, but farcical? The only things you proved is that you do not know how to calculate the average velocity of an imaginary bullet and you are hopeless at spreadsheets. Your entertainment value as a useful idiot is over for now, and you will never figure it out without more help. Help is on the way, grasshopper. Columns 1, 2, and 3 are direct entry of data generated by entering imaginary data into a generator at http://www.shooterscalculator.com/. I replicated the data taken from the calculator with “My BB's.” If I input initial velocity as 3240 fps, and other data, and call it “My BB's,” I can show a chart for magical bb’s. http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=34fa8220 The Shooter’s Calculator only provides a result based on user input. It does not present a spreadsheet with the formulas to generate the data. The data from the Calculator can be cut and pasted into a spreadsheet, or entered by direct entry; this produces data in the cells, but no spreadsheet formulas in the cells. The chart states the speed of sound as 1130 feet per second (fps). The remaining 4 columns, (4, 5, 6, 7) were generated by VxH. Column 6 uses 1130.8 fps to calculate the time for sound to travel the distance stated in Column 1. Column 4 is labeled as (Avg V) Vb. This column purports to present the average velocity of the bullet to cover the distance for the row it is in. All of the data in this column is epically wrong as the methodology of calculation is absurdly wrong. To calculate the average velocity of the bullet, divide distance by time. Instead of this, a personal misbegotten formula was used. Probably a pocket calculator for each cell in Column 4 was used to perform the calculations, and the data was directly entered into the cells by hand. For the first two data rows, sum 3240 and 3163 and divide by 2. 6403/2 yields the 3201 in Column 4. For the first three data rows, sum 3240+3163+3088 for 9491. 9491 / 3 yields the 3163.6667 in Column 4. And so on, and so forth. All the calculated Column 4 data (average Vb), is garbage. The chosen methodology was to sum the velocity given for each distance, and divide by the number of elements summed. This produces nonsensical data. Example: You drive a car 100 miles at 80 mph. You drive another 100 miles at 20 mph. With this bogus methodology, 80 + 20 = 100, divide by 2, and your average velocity was 50 mph. Not. In the real world, you drove 100/80 or 1.25 hours at 80 mph. You drove 100/20 or 5 hours at 20 mph. And you drove 200 miles in 6.25 hours. Your average speed was 200/6.25, or 32 mph. Column 4, in addition to using an absurd methodology for its calculations, also incorporates two summing errors for the velocities taken from Column 3, at 900 feet and 1275 ft. In each case, the actual sum was 1 less than that calculated. Spreadsheet formulas are not prone to fat finger syndrome, and do not make such errors, but someone with a pocket calculator or pen and paper does. The data was typed in after external calculation. Where you calculate 2367.5926 average Vb at 1950 feet, 1950/1.211933 (the velocity of the bullet in Column 5), it yields 1608.9998 fps, remarkably close to the 1609 in Column 3. But then, the elapsed time in Column 2 is 0.86, not 1.21933. It is a conundrum how the bullet traveled for 1.21933 seconds in an elapsed time of 0.86 seconds. Of course, when you use Column 1 1950 ft and Column 3 1609 fps to derive the time of flight, the formula is d/Vb, and Vb is the Average Velocity. The bullet will travel 1905 feet distance (Col 1) in 0.86 sec time (Col 2) in 1905/0.86 or 2267.4418 average Vb. Stated in your headnote is Tb is d/Vb. It is noteworthy that you used Column 3 as the "average" velocity of the bullet in order to derive the other average velocity of the bullet in Column 4. Column 5 (Tb) incorporates the garbage data from Column 4 into its calculations, and all the resulting calculated data is wrong. GIGO. Column 7 (T = Tb – Ts) incorporates the garbage data from Column 5 and all the calculated data is wrong. GIGO. The chart is multicolor and pretty, but the data for the imaginary bullet is demonstrably wrong in every column you created, except for column 6 where you succeeded in dividing the distance by 1130.8.
LOL please tell the class why the bullet accelerates / decelerates / accelerates repeatedly when your "analysis" is applied? The time in the chart rendered by the ballistic calculator only has 2 decimals of precision. Calculating the average per the reported velocity is thus more accurate.
>> and the data was directly entered into the cells by hand. Bzzzt. Fail again.
Some dirty rotten no good chopped the formulas off your chart. d is the target distance.(range) The time in the chart rendered by the ballistic calculator only has 2 decimals of precision. Calculating the average per the reported velocity is thus more accurate. More accurate is to divide the distance by the velocity and get the time to more decimal places and eliminate the rounding error. Your bullshit methodology of summing velocities and dividing does not work. It is bullshit. Your chart in Column 2 from btgresearch indicates Tb for range 1950 is 0.86 seconds. Column 5 for 1950 range indicates Tb is 0.823621. You call that fixing a rounding error???? How did displaying only two decimal places to 0.86 convert to 0.823621. Of course, the time of 0.02 could represent a figure rounded to two decimal places for presentation, and actually represent anything from 0.0150 to 0.0249. 75 feet divided by Vel[x] 3239 75/3239 feet, taken to six decimal places gives 0.0231552 seconds bullet travel time. Hot damn, it's within the rounding error. At Vel[x+y] 3240 feet per second, and 75 feet distance, the time to six decimal places would be 0.0231481 seconds bullet travel time and hot damn, that's within the rounding error too. You have the distance and velocity as a given from btgresearch. Divide the distance by the velocity d/V, and you can calculate the time to however many decimal places you desire. The stupid... it hurts! The chart results are based on the data you entered. As I demonstratred, the same data entered for My BB's produces a chart with the same data for BB's. If the chart correctly calculated the ballistic data for the parameters you entered, http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=34fa8220 Tell everybody how you derived average velocity. Come on. Question my analysis of how you made a botch of the Average Bullet Velocity. Give us your methodology and formula. Why were all your calculations wrong except for distance divided by time? The data which you input did not come from any real life ammunition, you just entered stuff, as I did for My BB's. I just entered the same stuff you did, proving my bb's have an initial Vel[x+y] of 3240 fps. My BB's perform precisely as do your imaginary cartridge. Are you saying the ballistics chart you used produced invalid results? If the chart results are valid, please tell the class why the chart indicates the bullet traveled 75 ft. in 0.02 seconds and that indicates average velocity d/time of 750/.02 = 3750 fps. It's your data. If the ballistics chart calculated correctly, you should understand the chart you presented, and be able to explain the results given. Do you think you are entitled to just use a nonsense formula which produces nosense results because you do not understand the chart data that you selected and presented? The note at the bottom of the chart indicates: Thank you, Lord.
Bzzzt. Fail again. Nope. You said you created spreadsheet and used their formulas. Had you used their formulas you would not have bullshit results, including arithmetic errors in the columns. Which formula of theirs did you use to manufacture the wrong bullet velocities? Cite any source that says to find average velocity with the method you used. When you introduced this bullshit on the other thread at your #19 to A K A Stone, you said: https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53046&Disp=19#C19 Only you did not use their formulas or you would not have gotten all the data you derived bass ackwards wrong, and you did not create formulas and drag them down through the rows, or you would not have the calculation errors the are apparent. I created a spreadsheet using the same data and created formulas and dragged them down through the rows. They work. That is how I can pinpoint where you made calculating errors in your data entry. All you did was cut and paste the chart data into a spreadsheet workbook. Columns 1 thru 3 were cut and paste. For Column 4, there is no chance that you created a formula and dragged it down through the rows. You go off at range 900 where you summed to 36497 instead of 36496. This error of 1 continues through to range 1275, where you summed to 47,572 instead of 45,570. This put the summing error at 2, which continued through range 1950 where you ended. This is not a spreadsheet error. I used two different formulas to sum the velocities, with results identical to each other. You used no formula. You sat there with your pocket calculator and added the first two and typed in the result. Then you added the third velocity and typed in the result. And you did this for each data entry in that column. If you have any spreadsheet formula that can replicate your results, produce it. As Column 4 calculates the sum of the velocities divided by the number of velocities, and the sum of the velocities was not created by a formula on a spreadsheet column, the column was manual data entry. In Column 5, d/Vb, the distance is correctly divided by the bogus average velocity, yielding a bogus result. When it is as simple as programming one column divided by another, good job. When it is summing a changing number of rows, fuhgetaboutit. That was direct data entry with arithmetic errors. In Column 6, I stated you were able to divide distance by 1130.8. When it is summing a changing number of rows, fuhgetaboutit. That was direct data entry with arithmetic errors. In Column 7, you managed to correctly subtract the bogus data in Column 5 from the bogus data in Column 6, yielding all bogus results. When it is as simple as programming one column subtracted from another, good job. It should have included an ABS function to avoid getting negative time results.When it is summing a changing number of rows, fuhgetaboutit. That was direct data entry with arithmetic errors. As Columns 5 and 7 incorporate the brain dead data in Column 4, with a double whammy of a bogus formula and calculation errors, all data in Columns 5 and 7 is bogus. Your chart in Column 2 from btgresearch indicates Tb for range 1950 is 0.86 seconds. Column 5 for 1950 range indicates Tb is 0.823621. You call that fixing a rounding error???? How did displaying only two decimal places to 0.86 convert to 0.823621????
As Column 4 calculates the sum of the velocities divided by the number of velocities, and the sum of the velocities was not created by a formula on a spreadsheet column, the column was manual data entry. Bzzzt. Another Nolu-FAIL. =SUM(C9:C10)/L9 Now please tell us how Nolu-Time works and then explain why the values of Column J are closer to Time (Column B) than Nolu-Time(Column I)? "more accurate is to divide the distance by the velocity and get the time to more decimal places nolu chan posted on 2017-10-28 18:47:52 ET https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=153#C153
Chan is kicking your ass and you are looking foolish with all your errors.
How do you determine your opinion?
I correctly illustrate the flaw inherent in taking a momentary point velocity of a continuously decelerating proctile and ASSuming it to be an average. There's a question regarding whether the value of Vel[x+y] for a given 75ft vector segment is the average Velocity OR whether it's just the momentry V at point d. Here is the spreadsheet updated with Tcalc where Tcalc is an attempt to reconstruct the elapsed Time for a given Vector: We're moving in the right direction - but the calculation for Tcalc could be even more accurate by deriving it from the slope of the DIFFERENCE between Vmin and Vmax for a given vector segment, rather than taking momentary V at point d and ASSuming it's a constant velocity over the entire 75ft segment... like you are.
Says the genius who posts videos with scribbling on a whiteboard presented as "PROOF". Can you solve for T given a 75 foot vector having Vmin and Vmax? Let's see if Noluchan's donkey can!
Post some more goofy Klingon pics It enhances your credibility.
My Klingon pics succinctly illustrate the gullible nature of individuals who post videos with scribbling on a white board as "proof". How's that workin' for ya? Meanwhile: Q: Can you solve for T given a 75 foot vector having Vmin and Vmax?
You have repeatedly changed and modified your numbers. Could you provide me a list of all of your errors that you posted so I can remove them from the site so people don't look at bullshit?
Here is an analogy of your "proof" Blue 42 Blue 42 hut hut hike. Ok I proved you are wrong.
My mind it is a beautiful thing.
I see your problem, now; it is called, profane vanity.
So you are with the V guy. That''s ok You agree with his analysis 100 percent correct. Or is your mind superior like mine and know that his analysis is bullshit. To many errors. To many things not factored in. I'm not saying that there were multiple shooters. I'm not saying Pollock or Paddock or whatever his name was didn't act alone. I'm just saying what V dude offers as 100 percent conclusive proof is not conclusive or proof.
Says the genius who made up an image with lots of wrong and made up numbers. I know the truth know. Spock is controlling your mind.
Truth is great and will prevail unless deprived of her natural weapons, free argument and debate. Does that work in AKA Stoned Land? There's nothing wrong with refining an analysis in the context of an honest desire to seek the truth. Time is still not being calculated with 100% accuracy. Why is that?
Does that work in AKA Stoned Land? That is fine. Truth also works if false things are no longer out there. If you care about truth why don't you find a list of all the posts yoy made with errors so we can correct them with the latest and the greatest.
In this case, the truth is still a work in process. For the next step in the process - Maybe "yoy" and Noluchan's donkey can tell us why applying a linear calculation (d/v) to a non-linear velocity produces values for Time which are farther away from the Ballistic chart's value for T than rounding can explain?
ROTFL
So, Illustration A: Vb calculated from d/Tcalc, where Tcalc= (d=75ft)/Vel A: Please explain how, in the context of the highlighted range of interest on the concert field, Noluchan's idea to reconstruct Time by taking (d=75ft)/Vel[x+y] Feel free to consult Noluchan's Donkey, since it probably has better temperament and reading comprehension skills than either of you two have demonstrated.
There's a question regarding whether the value of Vel[x+y] for a given 75ft vector segment is the average Velocity OR whether it's just the momentry V at point d. The problem is that you are clueless and do not know what your are doing and do not know what a vector is. Here is a correct spreadsheet: As a vector is described by a line and not a point, the Column D velocity at 75 feet describes the average bullet velocity for the segment from 0 to 75 feet, and the velocity at 150 feet describes the average bullet velocity from 0 to 150 feet, and so on. The time for 75 feet indicates the elapsed time for 0 to 75 feet. The time for 150 feet indicates the elapsed time for 0 to 150 feet. Column C, the time, is derived by dividing Column B (distance) by Column D. In your chart it is was rounded off to two decimal places. I took it to four decimal places. Your added Rube Goldberg nonsense was not only wrong but unecessary. Average velocity at the stated distances was staring you in the face. In Columns H thru L, I have provided the data for each 75-foot segment. At 1575 feet, the bullet opens its largest gap on sound at 0.05502 seconds. From 1575 to 1650 feet, the bullet travels at an average velocity of 1127.9144 fps, dipping below the speed of sound. After that, sound is traveling faster than the bullet and the gap diminishes.
>>Here is a correct spreadsheet Too bad it's not one you created with ballistic data as per the methodology: http://www.btgr esearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf Meanwhile, Please explain how, in the context of the highlighted range of interest on the concert field, Your idea to reconstruct Time by taking (d=75ft)/Vel[x+y] does not seem to produce results that magically render the values produced by summing and averaging Vel[x+y] into " bullshit" Illustration A: Vb calculated from d/Tcalc, where Tcalc= (d=75ft)/Vel A: Please explain how, in the context of the highlighted range of interest on the concert field, Noluchan's idea to reconstruct Time by taking (d=75ft)/Vel[x+y]
It surprises me a little that we have seen no attempts at forensic reconstruction of the shooting by recognized shooting experts and/or audio experts. Other than that sad-sack attempt by the NYSlimes, I haven't seen anything along these lines. There are experts out there. So why aren't we hearing from them? Is it because they find the audio data to be ambiguous? Who knows.
I asked the authors of the study http://www.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf They replied: "our standard operating procedure is to avoid public comments on shooting events. This better protects our neutrality and value of our analysis in the event that we are retained by an agency or party to subsequent legal proceedings. We also like to restrict our analysis to materials that come into our possession following a proper and documented chain of custody regarding handling of evidence. When it comes time for depositions or courtroom testimony, most experts who have made prior public comments on a matter find that opposing legal counsel, opposing experts, and the blogosphere find ways to make them regret earlier public comments." =============== In light of what can be observed here - that makes sense.
Well, it is an explanation. They're hoping to be hired guns as expert witnesses in the upcoming civil litigation.
Yeah. In the meantime, I've found this exercise to be a worthwhile learning experience.
At 1950 ft your "spreadsheet" has an elapsed time of 1.2119 with a corresponding Vel[x+y] of 1609. Meanwhile observe the corresponding elapsed time and Vel[x+y] generated by: OOPS! How'd ya manage to do that, Professor DonkyChan?
I'm not telling you to stop or that you're wasting your time. You might stumble over something unnoticed by everyone. Recall how Dan Rather was brought down by a persistent guy that noticed the fonts in the fake documents about Dumbya's military service.
If your Column c, Vel[x+y] (ft/s) represents an instantaneous velocity, it cannot be used in this manner. Make up your mind, does Column C represent instantaneous velocities, valid only at a single point, and not over any range?
Says the Donkey who managed to transform 0.86 seconds into 1.2119 seconds. Meanwhile... http://www.answers.com/Q /What_is_instantaneous_slope As per what I said in https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53046&Disp=105#C105 the next step in the quest is to explore methods of deriving Time relative to the slope of the DIFFERENCE between Vmin and Vmax for a given vector segment.
http://www.answers.com/Q /What_is_instantaneous_slope As per what I said in https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53046&Disp=105#C105 the next step in the quest is to explore methods of deriving Time relative to the slope of the DIFFERENCE between Vmin and Vmax for a given vector segment. To find what is at your source, we go to the link, which, like the link to the Khan Academy, only shows that you are bullshitting. You seem to have a special affinity in providing cut and paste bullshit as as some sort of profound knowledge. http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_instantaneous_slope The instantaneous slope of a curve is the slope of that curve at a single point. In calculus, this is called the derivative. It also might be called the line tangent to the curve at a point. If you imagine an arbitrary curve (just any curve) with two points on it (point P and point Q), the slope between P and Q is the slope of the line connecting those two points. This is called a secant line. If you keep P where it is and slide Q closer and closer to P along the curve, the secant line will change slope as it gets smaller and smaller. When Q gets extremely close to P (so that there is an infinitesimal space between P and Q), then the slope of the secant line approximates the slope at P. When we take the limit of that tiny distance as it approaches zero (meaning we make the space disappear) we get the slope of the curve at P. This is the instantaneous slope or the derivative of the curve at P. Mathematically, we say that the slope at P = limh—>0 [f(x+h) - f(x)]÷h = df/dx, where h is the distance between P and Q, f(x) is the position of P, f(x+h) is the position of Q, and df/dx is the derivative of the curve with respect to x. The formula above is a specific case where the derivative is in terms of x and we're dealing with two dimensions. In physics, the instantaneous slope (derivative) of a position function is velocity, the derivative of velocity is acceleration, and the derivative of acceleration is jerk. Of course, the calculus formula P = limh—>0 [f(x+h) - f(x)]÷h = df/dx, where h is the distance between P and Q, f(x) is the position of P, f(x+h) is the position of Q, and df/dx is the derivative of the curve with respect to x was not used anywhere in your spreadsheet, so you are just bullshitting. Also, However, the slope of a bullet in flight is constantly changing, the deceleration is not constant, and the slope contains an infinite number of points. Moreover, you have merely bullshitted and have not described any formula to obtain the average velocity of the bullet over a given range, using instantaneous velocities. While you claim calculus formulas in your spreadsheet, you have yet to show a formula to sum changing parts of a spreadsheet column, i.e., sum row 1 and 2, sum row 1 thru 3, then row 1 thru 4, and so forth. I used such a formula and it showed that your column contained arithmetical errors not created by a spreadsheet formula. When you can program adding sums, I'll consider you doing calculus. As it is, you have not demostrated the ability to consistently add two numbers together, which is what you did to to sum that column. You added rows 1 and 2 to get the row 2 total; then you added row 3 to get the row 3 total, and so on, making two errors in 26 rows. You are fortunate it was now a thousand rows on a spreadsheet in a finance office. The formula for calculating average velocity (d/t) is given by the Khan Academy in the video you referenced. In their example, they divide a distance fo 1000m by 200s and get an average velocity of 5 m/s, and then they explicitly state, that siad result "doesn't necessarily equal the instantaneous velocities at particular points." The Khan Academy does not say that you can sum two instantaneous velocities and divide by two, and get an average velocity between the two points. See what you referenced. The first sentence is important — pretend you are a physics student. - [Instructor] Pretend you are a physics student. You are just getting out of class. You were walking home when you remembered that there was a Galaxy Wars marathon on tonight, so you'd do what every physics student would do: run. You're pretty motivated to get home, so say you start running at six meters per second. Maybe it's been a while since the last time you ran, so you have to slow down a little bit to two meters per second. When you get a little closer to home, you say: "No, Captain Antares wouldn't give up "and I'm not giving up either", and you start running at eight meters per second and you make it home just in time for the opening music. These numbers are values of the instantaneous speed. The instantaneous speed is the speed of an object at a particular moment in time. And if you include the direction with that speed, you get the instantaneous velocity. In other words, eight meters per second to the right was the instantaneously velocity of this person at that particular moment in time. Note that this is different from the average velocity. If your home was 1,000 meters away from school and it took you a total of 200 seconds to get there, your average velocity would be five meters per second, which doesn't necessarily equal the instantaneous velocities at particular points on your trip. In other words, let's say you jogged 60 meters in a time of 15 seconds. During this time you were speeding up and slowing down and changing your speed at every moment. Regardless of the speeding up or slowing down that took place during this path, your average velocity's still just gonna be four meters per second to the right; or, if you like, positive four meters per second. Just as your instantaneous velocity at two discrete and infinitesimal points can not be summed and divided by two to obtain average velocity, the instantaneous slope at two discrete and infinitesimal points will be different and cannot be used to calculate the slope of a traveling bullet whose velocity is contantly changing. While this bullshit about instantaneous slopes has diverted from your other bullshit about instantaneous velocities, you are still left searching to explain (1) your calculation used to derive average velocity over the specified distances, (2) your calculation used to change the formula for calculating average velocity over distance. Your chart stipulated distance and time. For 75 feet, you stipulated 0.02 seconds. This is your data, not mine. Using the formula, d/t=V(avg), that is 3,750 feet per second average velocity. If we assume that you meant the time to be anything between 0.015 and 0.025 seconds, that is 3000 - 5000 feet per second average velocity. For 1950 feet, you stipulated 0.86 seconds, and an average velocity of 2367.5926 feet per second, obtained by a formula you can neither present nor explain, nor can you provide any citation to any authority for your bullshit calculation. V(avg) = d/t = 1950/0.86 = 2267.4418 feet per second average velocity. If we assume that you meant the time to be anything between 0.855 and 0.865, then, V(avg) may equal 1950/0.0855 = 2280.7017 V(avg) may equal 1950/0.0865 = 2254.3353 Meanwhile, your bullshit 2367.5926 average velocity allows one to derive the time required to travel 1950 feet. 1950/2367.5926 = 0.823621429 seconds. Indeed, your second time for Tb, the time of the bullet, in your column E, reflects a bullet flight time of 0.823621 seconds, giving three less decimal points than I did, but rounding the the same precise thing at your chosen four decimal places, indicating how you derived that bullshit Tb from the bullshit average velocity. To check whether this bullshit time is not impossible with the stipulated data, one need only check if it is within the rounding possibilities of the stipulated data, i.e., from 0.855 to 0.865 seconds. Oh noes, your bullshit average velocity (0.823621) is not possible to reconcile with the stiplulated time, even allowing for the maximum rounding error. Your misbegotten time would round to 0.82 instead of 0.86. You have yet to explain how you can stipulate a bullet time of 0.86 seconds, and through the magic of VxH formulas, transform that time into 0.823621 seconds, and then use that visibly bullshit time to perform further bullshit calculations. If the bullet flew 1950 feet in 0.823621, why sure enough it went at an average velocity of 2367.5938 and covered 1950 feet. However, at the stipulated time of 0.86 seconds, at the bullshit average velocity of 2367.5938 feet per second, the bullet would have flown 2036.1307 feet. The stipulated distance is 1950 feet. At the maximum rounding down error to 0.855 seconds, at your bullshit average velocity of 2367.5926, the bullet would have flown 2024.292699 feet (0.855 x 2367.5926). The stipulated distance is 1950 feet. With your stipulated data, you may not have more or less than 1950 feet. You may not have less than 0.855 seconds flight time, nor more than 0.865 seconds flight time. You cannot change the distance the bullet flew, nor do more than consider a rounding error on the time. Your calculated numbers fail miserably. Your bullshit calculated numbers fall outside the maximum possible error attributable to a rounding error. Your bullshit calculations result in a new time, not within any rounding error, replacing 0.86 with 0.823621. Your bullshit average velocity over 1950 feet (2367.5926), at the maximum rounding error for stipulated time (0.86 rounded down to 0.855), requires the bullet to fly a minimum of 2024.292699 feet.
LOL. Idiot. ShooterCalculator.com Says: ======================== Professor DonkeyChan says: 1.2119 seconds nolu chan posted on 2017-10-30 19:58:41 ET https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=160#C160
Column B of above spreadsheet shows the specified distance and the specified time for that distance. Column C shows the specified time for the distance traveled. Column D shows the time rounded down to the minimum time possibly explained by rounding. Column E shows the time rounded up to the maximum time possibly explained by rounding. Column F shows the Average Velocity (d/t) calculated with the unadjusted time from Column C. Column G shows the Average Velocity (d/t) calculated with the minimum time possible from Column D. This minimum time of flight shows the maximum possible average velocity of the bullet. Column H shows the Average Velocity (d/t) calculsted with the maximum time possible from Column E. This maximum time of flight show the minimum average velocity of the bullet. Column I shows the time for sound to travel the distance at 1130 fps. Column J shows the time difference between the bullet and the sound using unadjusted time from Column C. Column K shows the maximum possible time difference between the bullet and the sound using the time rounded down in Column D. Column L shows the minimum possible time difference between the bullet and the sound using the time rounded up in Column E. Column N states VXH Average Velocity using undisclosed math, presumably of Klingon origin. Column O states the instantaneous velocities at the distances specified in Column B. These velocities reflect a specific and infinitesimal point it time only, and do not describe velocity at any other point in time. Comparing Columns H and N, Column H calculates the maximum possible average velocity with the time round down as far is is possible. Column N is the average velocity claimed by VxH, using his secret Klingon mathematics. Notice his secret method obtain an average velocity well below the maximum possible for 75 feet, but comes nearer to the maximum possible with every calculation, and at 1200 feet his calculations leave the realm of the possible. At 1200 feet, at the specified time of 0.46 seconds, the average velocity would be 2608.70 feet per second (1200/0.46). Anyone can do the arithmetic. At 1200 feet, at 0.46 seconds rounded down as far as possible to 0.455 seconds (Column D), the maximum average veocity of 2637.36 feet per second (Column G) is achieved (2637.36/0.455). Anyone can still do the arithmetic. At this point, the VxH calculations exceed the possibilities of reality and achieve 2675.1176 feet per second. After this point, every VxH calculation widens the error. At 1950 feet, the Column G max average velocity is 2280.70 (1950/0.0855). After more calculations, the VxH error expands the difference to 2367.5926 feet per second. If carried on to further distances, the error will simply keep increasing. He started with 64% of the maximum possible average velocity, and surpassed 100% of the maximum on his 16th calculation, and continued to surpass the maximum possible average velocity by a greater and greater amount. Moreover, the distance and the time were a given.
...ft........ sec .... sec per VxH
75 0.02 0.023427
150 0.05 0.047413
225 0.07 0.071971
300 0.10 0.097113
375 0.12 0.122843
450 0.15 0.149183
525 0.18 0.176138
600 0.20 0.203720
675 0.23 0.231943
750 0.26 0.260820
825 0.29 0.290357
900 0.32 0.320574
975 0.36 0.351496
1050 0.39 0.383128
1125 0.42 0.415484
1200 0.46 0.448578
1275 0.49 0.482427
1350 0.53 0.517054
1425 0.56 0.552465
1500 0.60 0.588675
1575 0.64 0.625711
1650 0.68 0.663578
1725 0.73 0.702290
1800 0.77 0.741864
1875 0.81 0.782303
1950 0.86 0.082621
Notice how VxH, in his calculations, at and after 1200 feet, reduces the time of flight of the bullet by more than any possible amount of rounding from two decimal places. By 1950 feet, VxH has "rounded off" 0.86 and amazingly reduced the stated flight time to his own preferred 0.82621.
>>By 1950 feet, VxH has "rounded off" 0.86 Nope. Not a rounding error Super Genius. It's an artifact manufacted from the AVERAGING curve. >>preferred 0.82621. Nope. Try to keep up - - I've moved on with a revised curve that reconstructs time from Velocity and Distance, As per what I said in https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53046&Disp=105#C105 the next step in the quest is to explore methods of deriving Time relative to the slope of the DIFFERENCE between Vmin and Vmax for a given vector segment. So, Professor DonkeyChan -- Here is the ballistic data table generated for 1 yard intervals from 1875 to 1950 ft. Drag Function: G1 Wind Speed: 0 mph Corrected For Atmosphere
Incomplete charts wilt errors constantly changing the data. Yet magically every time you change your numbers they still ,magically work. Give it up you are looking foolish. There is no way for you to prove anything from your keyboard using this method.
Nah, foolish is not knowing that in order to recreate the ballistic data curve (and thus the average Velocity over a given distance) with complete accuracy would require duplicating the function used in the Ballistic chart generator. Meanwhile, averaging via various methods to get an approximation is completely acceptable - and USEFUL for gaining an understanding into what the audio is telling us.
Sumtymes these assholes fart on a selected thread. Ignore them.
You have explored methods which require require rewriting the bullet flight times far beyond any possible rounding error. Reconstructing the given travel time is VxH BULLSHIT. Time and distance are given. Rounding the given time up or down does not help your bullshit work. Your bullshit methodology changes the given 0.86 seconds elapsed time to 0.82 seconds. There is no valid formula in the world for that. Time and distance are given data. Average velocity equals distance divided by time. Distance in feet, divideded by time in seconds, yields velocity in feet per second. Column B of above spreadsheet shows the specified distance and the specified time for that distance. Column C shows the specified time for the distance traveled. Column D shows the time rounded down to the minimum time possibly explained by rounding. Column E shows the time rounded up to the maximum time possibly explained by rounding. Column F shows the Average Velocity (d/t) calculated with the unadjusted time from Column C. Column G shows the Average Velocity (d/t) calculated with the minimum time possible from Column D. This minimum time of flight shows the maximum possible average velocity of the bullet. Column H shows the Average Velocity (d/t) calculsted with the maximum time possible from Column E. This maximum time of flight show the minimum average velocity of the bullet. Column I shows the time for sound to travel the distance at 1130 fps. Column J shows the time difference between the bullet and the sound using unadjusted time from Column C. Column K shows the maximum possible time difference between the bullet and the sound using the time rounded down in Column D. Column L shows the minimum possible time difference between the bullet and the sound using the time rounded up in Column E. Column N states VXH Average Velocity using undisclosed math, presumably of Klingon origin. Column O states the instantaneous velocities at the distances specified in Column B. There velocities reflect a specific and infinitesimal point it time only, and do not describe velocity at any other point in time. Comparing Columns H and N, Column H calculates the maximum possible average velocity with the time round down as far is is possible. Column N is the average velocity claimed by VxH, using his secret Klingon mathematics. Notice his secret method obtain an average velocity well below the maximum possible for 75 feet, but comes nearer to the maximum possible with every calculation, and at 1200 feet his calculations leave the realm of the possible. At 1200 feet, at the specified time of 0.46 seconds, the average velocity would be 2608.70 feet per second (1200/0.46). Anyone can do the arithmetic. At 1200 feet, at 0.46 seconds rounded down as far as possible to 0.455 seconds (Column D), the maximum average veocity of 2637.36 feet per second (Column G) is achieved (2637.36/0.455). Anyone can still do the arithmetic. At this point, the VxH calculations exceed the possibilities of reality and achieve 2675.1176 feet per second. After this point, every VxH calculation widens the error. At 1950 feet, the Column G max average velocity is 2280.70 (1950/0.0855). After more calculations, the VxH error expands the difference to 2367.5926 feet per second. If carried on to further distances, the error will simply keep increasing. He started with 64% of the maximum possible average velocity, and surpassed 100% of the maximum on his 16th calculation, and continued to surpass the maximum possible average velocity by a greater and greater amount. Moreover, the distance and the time were a given.
ft.......... sec..... sec
75 0.02 0.023427
150 0.05 0.047413
225 0.07 0.071971
300 0.10 0.097113
375 0.12 0.122843
450 0.15 0.149183
525 0.18 0.176138
600 0.20 0.203720
675 0.23 0.231943
750 0.26 0.260820
825 0.29 0.290357
900 0.32 0.320574
975 0.36 0.351496
1050 0.39 0.383128
1125 0.42 0.415484
1200 0.46 0.448578
1275 0.49 0.482427
1350 0.53 0.517054
1425 0.56 0.552465
1500 0.60 0.588675
1575 0.64 0.625711
1650 0.68 0.663578
1725 0.73 0.702290
1800 0.77 0.741864
1875 0.81 0.782303
1950 0.86 0.082621
Notice how VxH, in his calculations, at and after 1200 feet, reduces the time of flight of the bullet by more than any possible amount of rounding from two decimal places. By 1950 feet, VxH has "rounded off" 0.86 and amazingly calculated, by secret methodology, the stated flight time to his own preferred 0.82621. That is VxH bullshit. Not only wrong but impossible on its face. Now tell us, Professor DonkeyChan - from the data provided, what is the average Velocity for the 75 ft segment ending at 1950 ft (1950ft, being the point at which, BTW, the instantaneous velocity is 1609fps)? The average velocity of any object covering 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds is 1950/0.86 = 2267.4419 feet per second. It could be a flying refrigerator. If it goes 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds, the average velocity is 2267.4419 seconds. The object could have sped up and slowed down between 0 and 1950 feet in any manner and it makes no difference. If the object covers the 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds, the average velocity for the 1950 foot distance is 2267.4419 seconds. Recall the Khan Academy video you previously referenced: - [Instructor] Pretend you are a physics student. You are just getting out of class. You were walking home when you remembered that there was a Galaxy Wars marathon on tonight, so you'd do what every physics student would do: run. You're pretty motivated to get home, so say you start running at six meters per second. Maybe it's been a while since the last time you ran, so you have to slow down a little bit to two meters per second. When you get a little closer to home, you say: "No, Captain Antares wouldn't give up "and I'm not giving up either", and you start running at eight meters per second and you make it home just in time for the opening music. These numbers are values of the instantaneous speed. The instantaneous speed is the speed of an object at a particular moment in time. And if you include the direction with that speed, you get the instantaneous velocity. In other words, eight meters per second to the right was the instantaneously velocity of this person at that particular moment in time. Note that this is different from the average velocity. If your home was 1,000 meters away from school and it took you a total of 200 seconds to get there, your average velocity would be five meters per second, which doesn't necessarily equal the instantaneous velocities at particular points on your trip. In other words, let's say you jogged 60 meters in a time of 15 seconds. During this time you were speeding up and slowing down and changing your speed at every moment. Regardless of the speeding up or slowing down that took place during this path, your average velocity's still just gonna be four meters per second to the right; or, if you like, positive four meters per second. [snip] The instantaneous velocity at 1950 feet is irrelevant to the calculation of the average velocity over the range 0 to 1950 feet.
LOL. It's not a rounding error Professor DonkeyChan. How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?
It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time. How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay? How did you work out that negative 33º angle? Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet. The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees. For another calculator, see: http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/ It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above. VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly. With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.) With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet. As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level. Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math.
>>The formula is distance divided by time. And when you don't have data for time with enough precision - what then, professor Donkeychan? Drag Function: G1 Wind Speed: 0 mph Corrected For Atmosphere
BZZZT! Probably not, since using 0.33 instead of -0.33 produces a slower velocity: (0.33) 1950 0.89 1489 (-0.33) 1950 0.86 1609
Bzzzt: Nope no secret. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53046&Disp=102#C102 You just can't/won't read. That's not a secret either.
BZZZT! Probably not, since using 0.33 instead of -0.33 produces a slower velocity: There is no 33 degree angle involved. Using your trajectory, Paddock would have come closer to shooting off his big toe than hitting anywhere in the festival venue. Learn to read: Declination is downward. Negative 33 degrees inclination is the same as 33 degrees declination. It is the difference between your preferred -33 degrees upward and 33 degrees downward. 33 degrees downward points down. Negative 33 degrees downward points up. It is like walking negative 33 feet east is walking 33 feet west. For another calculator, see: The gundata entry specifies "Shooting angle (0..89)." Stick a negative value in there and it will reject. As there is no such thing as a triangle with negative angles, the values for every angle of a triangle are positive values. In a triangle with sides -3 and -4, a2 + b2 = c2 would yield a hypotenuse of positive 5. (0.33) 1950 0.89 1489 (-0.33) 1950 0.86 1609 The data available at the links shows the only data change between my two charts is one is -33 and the other is 33. Not so for the chart you just created with yet another time calculation. You changed the input data. http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=75dcb734 -33 degrees http://www.shooterscalculator.com/images/trajectory/ballistic_trajectory_chart_75dcb734.png This chart made with the original -33 data, shows the bullet rise above the original altitude, and remain above that altitude, for over 300 yards. This is an amazing feat for a bullet shot on a steep downward angle. - - - - - - - - - - http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=fd15e1b9 33 degrees http://www.shooterscalculator.com/images/trajectory/ballistic_trajectory_chart_fd15e1b9.png Amazingly, when the angle is changed from -33 to 33, the flight path does not change, according to your calculator. - - - - - - - - - - When your calculator permits you to enter ridiculous data, it provides you with ridiculous results. As one may observe, it provides the precise same flight trajectory, whether at 33 or -33. When fired at 33 degrees downward, the bullet goes upward and remains above the original location for over 300 yards. The data available at the links shows the only data change to be -33 to 33. The time for 650 yards/1950 feet is 0.86 in either instance. The average velocity for any object that travels 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds is 1950/0.86 = 2267.4418 ft/sec. - - - - - - - - - - YOUR DATA WITH A NEW TIME SHOWS YOU ALTERED THE INPUT DATA. And your flight trajectory chart for -33 degrees featuring a new time http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=81e7edd6 http://www.shooterscalculator.com/images/trajectory/ballistic_trajectory_chart_81e7edd6.png Notice that with the projectile purported fired at a 33 degree downward angle, the projectile maintains its original altitude for about 150 yards. Of course, in your derivation of data, you changed the properties of the chart: Drag Function: G1 Corrected For Atmosphere - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To see the prior input data, just look: As for your magic ability to fire rounds down at 33º, and have them either rise or maintain altitude for hundreds of yards,
And when you don't have data for time with enough precision - what then, professor Donkeychan? By the way, if the given time and distance data was imprecise, what was used to calculate the instantaneous velocities? [VxH at #175] LOL. It's not a rounding error Professor DonkeyChan. If the given data is not subject to a rounding error, then it is totally accurate and precise, distance/time works fine, and your bogus calculated data is bullshit. If the given data is subject to a rounding error, then it is accurate ± 0.005, in which case using distance/time works to define the possible range of average velocity within the rounding factor, and this also proves your bogus calculated data is bullshit.
Bzzzt: Nope no secret. The given time is 0.86. [nolu chan #137] That is VxH bullshit. Not only wrong but impossible on its face. Now tell us, Professor DonkeyChan - from the data provided, what is the average Velocity for the 75 ft segment ending at 1950 ft (1950ft, being the point at which, BTW, the instantaneous velocity is 1609fps)? The average velocity of any object covering 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds is 1950/0.86 = 2267.4419 feet per second. It could be a flying refrigerator. If it goes 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds, the average velocity is 2267.4419 seconds. The object could have sped up and slowed down between 0 and 1950 feet in any manner and it makes no difference. If the object covers the 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds, the average velocity for the 1950 foot distance is 2267.4419 seconds. Recall the Khan Academy video you previously referenced: - [Instructor] Pretend you are a physics student. You are just getting out of class. You were walking home when you remembered that there was a Galaxy Wars marathon on tonight, so you'd do what every physics student would do: run. You're pretty motivated to get home, so say you start running at six meters per second. Maybe it's been a while since the last time you ran, so you have to slow down a little bit to two meters per second. When you get a little closer to home, you say: "No, Captain Antares wouldn't give up "and I'm not giving up either", and you start running at eight meters per second and you make it home just in time for the opening music. These numbers are values of the instantaneous speed. The instantaneous speed is the speed of an object at a particular moment in time. And if you include the direction with that speed, you get the instantaneous velocity. In other words, eight meters per second to the right was the instantaneously velocity of this person at that particular moment in time. Note that this is different from the average velocity. If your home was 1,000 meters away from school and it took you a total of 200 seconds to get there, your average velocity would be five meters per second, which doesn't necessarily equal the instantaneous velocities at particular points on your trip. In other words, let's say you jogged 60 meters in a time of 15 seconds. During this time you were speeding up and slowing down and changing your speed at every moment. Regardless of the speeding up or slowing down that took place during this path, your average velocity's still just gonna be four meters per second to the right; or, if you like, positive four meters per second. [snip]
And when you don't have data for time with enough precision - what then, professor Donkeychan? Below is the bogus input data presented for this chart [boldface added]: Wind Speed: 0 mph Corrected For Atmosphere The data actually attached to this new bullshit chart is shown below, as it appears at the link [boldface added]: Wind Speed: 0 mph Corrected For Atmosphere
YAWN. http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ Has a bug where input values don't always populate from the parameters in the URL. How ya comin' with that CURVE professor DonkeyChan?
If the given data is not subject to a rounding error, then it is totally accurate and precise, distance/time works fine, and your bogus calculated data is bullshit. It's still not a rounding error, Super Genius. It's a result of the AVERAGING calculation that was used in the context of Time data that was truncated to an insufficiently precise (for the purpose of determining average velocity) 2 decimal points. =SUM(C9:C10)/L9
#2. To: VXH (#0)
#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
#43. To: VxH (#39)
In the context of postmodern "culture" where significant number of indivuals are so ignorant of (or even repelled by) science -- that they "believe" they can change their sex....
#44. To: Pinguinite (#43)
#45. To: VxH (#44)
Every Human is ONE of those at birth and, despite the latest fashionable Anti-Fa-LGBTQXYZWherever Transhumanist- Postgenderist, Newpeak - that. IS. Reality.
#46. To: Pinguinite (#45)
(Edited)
#47. To: VxH (#46)
Well, several billion years of BINARY natural selection speaks for itself.
XX + XX = FAIL
XY + XY = FAIL
XX + XY = Human
#48. To: VxH (#47)
#49. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#3)
...by a kook. A kook who wants to make money off ads on YouBoob peddling CTs to even more gullible kooks.
#50. To: Liberator (#49)
(Edited)
#51. To: Tooconservative (#50)
I'm not going to explore all these brave new worlds of kookery that you enjoy so much.
#52. To: Liberator (#51)
#53. To: Liberator, Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#49)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#54. To: Tooconservative (#52)
I will note that your anger...
#55. To: Pinguinite (#4)
(Edited)
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.
#56. To: Tooconservative (#15)
Did you know that he has two gas chromatographs?
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
WHOA! Do his go to ELEVEN?
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
(Edited)
#59. To: Pinguinite (#47)
Well, in the case of humans, true.
#60. To: Pinguinite (#58)
Hehe... A reference to "Spinal Tap", no doubt.
#61. To: VxH, Pinguinite (#34)
He's claiming to have "proof" that he doesn't present - luring folks into clicking on his video, which is monetized.
Content that is not eligible for advertising
Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.
#62. To: Tooconservative, VxH (#26)
Google already delisted his websites entirely.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
#64. To: A K A Stone, tooconservative (#1)
(Edited)
#65. To: Tooconservative (#63)
You obviously don't understand what delisting is.
#66. To: Tooconservative, noluchan (#63)
You obviously don't understand what delisting is.
#67. To: VxH (#66)
If KlingonBurger.com
#68. To: A K A Stone (#67)
You still pushing the teleportion echo theory I see.
#69. To: Tooconservative (#33)
That security guard panicked him, ruined his timetable all around.
#70. To: GrandIsland (#69)
#71. To: Tooconservative (#70)
#72. To: GrandIsland (#71)
I've responded and or handled many high profile crime scenes... and over the following weeks until the full incident is reported by LE, I've heard the most retarded conspiracy theories... when I know what actually happened. It's not even laughable.
#73. To: A K A Stone, VXH, buckeroo, tooconservative, cz82, redleghunter, sneakypete, Pinguinite, Vicomte13, Liberator, Deckard (#1)
Found this interesting video.
Thread: 308 Ammo Help
This is a .223 ballistics chart (external) generated using our ballistic trajectory calculator. Based off a standard 55gr bullet leaving the barrel at 3,215fps and follows the bullet trajectory all the way to 1000 yards in steps of 50 yard increments. The charting shows the range, drop (based off a 1.5" scope mount), current velocity, energy, and time in seconds in relation to the bullets movement through space and time. This chart does not account for atmospheric conditions, so if you want to take in to effect these things check out the calculators official page. The Ballistic Coefficient for the .223 Remington, Remington Metal Case, 55gr is 0.202 (in this example) but, but may also range from .185 bc to .257
-31.7981 [drop, inches]
1588 [Velocity]
308 [energy]
532 [time, milliseconds]
#74. To: nolu chan (#73)
What was left in the room should be inventoried, along with what guns were in the room.
#75. To: Liberator (#74)
Now how can the science be explained away? (Oh wait -- it was already done in spades over 911.)
#76. To: nolu chan (#73)
#77. To: nolu chan (#73)
I believe the white board has an error. The flight time should be 0.532s, not 0.528s.
#78. To: nolu chan (#73)
#79. To: VxH (#78)
#80. To: A K A Stone (#79)
(Edited)
Just that your image doesn't prove shit.
["Taxi Driver Video" the Zapruder Film of the Las Vegas shooting UNCUT / UNEDITED]
https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=mBbOFwWquAw&feature=youtu.be&t=1m7s
and
https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=mBbOFwWquAw&feature=youtu.be&t=1m24s
T1: Time from start of video (1minute N seconds) at the time of the last shot in the burst.
T2: Time from the start of the video (1minute N seconds) at the time of the echoed sound event corresponding to T1.
TempF: the air temperature (72 degrees F)
FPS: 1130 ft per second -- The speed of sound at 72 degrees F
Elapsed Time: T2 minus T1, the number of seconds between the last shot, and the echo of the last shot in each burst.
Total Distance: Elapsed Time * FPS = the total distance traveled between T1 and T2.
Echo Distance = The distance the echo traveled from the aiming point back to the point of origin.
===============
https://www.google.co m/search?biw=1544&bih=856&q=Forensic+Acoustics+gunfire
http://www.physic sclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/er.cfm
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/las- vegas/historic
http://www.csgnetwork.c om/soundspeedcalc.html
#81. To: VxH (#78)
All numbers he pulled out of his arse?
#82. To: nolu chan (#81)
(Edited)
The audio he used is presented.
#83. To: VxH (#82)
The amplitude graphs of the audio referenced on my meme can be reproduced by anyone with minimal tools. It's REPRODUCIBLE - that's what differentiates valid science from conspiratorial buffoonery.
#84. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#80)
My meme references, measures, and explains actual audio.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=42#C42
["Taxi Driver Video" the Zapruder Film of the Las Vegas shooting
UNCUT / UNEDITED]
https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=mBbOFwWquAw&feature=youtu.be&t=1m7s
and
https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=mBbOFwWquAw&feature=youtu.be&t=1m24s
===============
T1: Time from start of video (1minute N seconds) at the time of the last shot in the burst.
T2: Time from the start of the video (1minute N seconds) at the time of the echoed sound event corresponding to T1.
TempF: the air temperature (72 degrees F)
FPS: 1130 ft per second -- The speed of sound at 72 degrees F
Elapsed Time: T2 minus T1, the number of seconds between the last shot, and the echo of the last shot in each burst.
Total Distance: Elapsed Time * FPS = the total distance traveled between T1 and T2.
Echo Distance = The distance the echo traveled from the aiming point back to the point of origin. Las Vegas Shooting: Chaos at a Concert
and a Frantic Search at Mandalay Bay
UPDATED 10:30 PM ET, OCT. 2, 2017
#85. To: nolu chan (#84)
(Edited)
Your chartoon lists "Test for Echo" and gives links to the Taxi Driver video.
#86. To: nolu chan (#83)
That you reproduce meaningless bullshit is meaningful
#87. To: VxH (#85)
What part of TWO. SEPARATE. ANALYSIS. are you failing to comprehend?
#88. To: VxH (#86)
The amplitude graphs are reproducible...
#89. To: nolu chan (#88)
#90. To: VxH (#89)
Maybe you just don't have what it takes.
#91. To: nolu chan (#90)
(Edited)
#92. To: VxH (#91)
Now, ask your donkey - what distance does that MEASURED absolute time difference correspond to on the chart?
Bullet Time, Velocity FPS, Tb–Ts
Tb = Time of bullet
Ts = Time of sound, 1.062 seconds @ 1,130 feet per second (FPS) (72ºF, 20% Humidity)
Ts – Tb = Time difference between Tb and Ts
Column 2 = Tb stepped in 100 FPS increments, beginning with Ts
Column 3 = Ts – Tb (time in seconds supersonic bullet arrives ahead of sound) Bullet time (s), Bullet average velocity (FPS), time difference to sound at 1,200 feet (s)
Bullet time (s) Bullet average vel FPS Time diff Ts-Tb 1.062 1130 0.000 0.976 1230 0.086 0.902 1330 0.160 0.839 1430 0.223 0.784 1530 0.278 0.736 1630 0.326 0.694 1730 0.368 0.656 1830 0.406 0.622 1930 0.440 0.591 2030 0.471 0.563 2130 0.499 0.538 2230 0.524 0.515 2330 0.547 0.494 2430 0.568 0.474 2530 0.588 0.456 2630 0.606 0.440 2730 0.622 0.424 2830 0.638 0.410 2930 0.652 0.396 3030 0.666 0.383 3130 0.679 0.372 3230 0.690 0.360 3330 0.702 0.350 3430 0.712 0.340 3530 0.722 0.331 3630 0.731 0.322 3730 0.740 0.313 3830 0.749 0.305 3930 0.757 0.298 4030 0.764
#93. To: nolu chan (#92)
(Edited)
#94. To: nolu chan (#92)
(Edited)
#95. To: VxH (#93)
Since we KNOW from the observed audio Vb is supersonic, we can treat the difference between Tb and Ts as Absolute.
#96. To: nolu chan (#95)
(Edited)
They have a spreadsheet function for that.
#97. To: VxH (#96)
#98. To: nolu chan (#97)
(Edited)
#99. To: nolu chan (#97)
(Edited)
Drag Function: G1
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°Wind Speed: 0 mph
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd
Chart Range: 750 yd
Maximum Range: 50002 yd
Step Size: 25 ydCorrected For Atmosphere
Adjusted BC: 0.33
Altitude: 2000 ft
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%
Speed of Sound: 1130 fpsRange Time Vel[x+y] (ft) (s) (ft/s) 0 0.00 3240 75 0.02 3163 150 0.05 3088 225 0.07 3014 300 0.10 2941 375 0.12 2870 450 0.15 2799 525 0.18 2730 600 0.20 2662 675 0.23 2595 750 0.26 2529 825 0.29 2465 900 0.32 2401 975 0.36 2337 1050 0.39 2275 1125 0.42 2214 1200 0.46 2154 1275 0.49 2095 1350 0.53 2036 1425 0.56 1979 1500 0.60 1923 1575 0.64 1867 1650 0.68 1813 1725 0.73 1760 1800 0.77 1708 1875 0.81 1658 1950 0.86 1609 2025 0.91 1561 2100 0.96 1515 2175 1.01 1470 2250 1.06 1426 
#100. To: VxH (#98)
Vs is the velocity of sound, and
Vb is the average bullet velocity over the distance
Tb is d / Vb (time to cover distance @ Vb)
Ts is d/Vs (time to cover distance @Vs) LOL please tell the class why the bullet accelerates / decelerates / accelerates repeatedly when your "analysis" is applied?
Keep in mind this is an approximation....
#101. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#99)
and the data was directly entered into the cells by hand.
I found/took their formula, built a spreadsheet, and plugged in 223 balistic data generated via shooterscalculator.com:
#102. To: nolu chan (#101)
(Edited)
=SUM(C$9:C11)/L10
=SUM(C$9:C12)/L11
etc.
Where column L contains 1 @ row 8 and =+L8+1, =+L9+1 etc for rows 9..34
#103. To: VxH (#102)
#104. To: A K A Stone (#103)
#105. To: nolu chan (#101)
(Edited)
You stipulate a DISTANCE ratio of 99:1. Nice try.
#106. To: A K A Stone (#103)
Chan is kicking your ass and you are looking foolish with all your errors.
#107. To: VxH (#106)
#108. To: A K A Stone (#107)
(Edited)
A: { crickets crickets crickets }
#109. To: VxH (#108)
#110. To: VxH (#108)
#111. To: buckeroo (#104)
How do you determine your opinion?
#112. To: A K A Stone (#111)
#113. To: buckeroo (#112)
#114. To: VxH (#106)
(Edited)
Says the genius who posts videos with scribbling on a whiteboard presented as "PROOF".
#115. To: A K A Stone (#109)
#116. To: VxH (#115)
(Edited)
Truth is great and will prevail unless deprived of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.
#117. To: A K A Stone (#116)
(Edited)
If you care about truth why don't you find a list of all the posts yoy made with errors
#118. To: VxH, A K A Stone, noluchan (#117)
Maybe you and Noluchan's donkey can tell us why applying a linear calculation (d/v) to a non-linear velocity produces values for Time which are farther away from the Ballistic chart's value for T than rounding can explain?
#119. To: A K A Stone, noluchan, buckeroo (#117)
(Edited)
{ crickets crickets crickets }
Illustration B: Vb using my original Average of summed Velocity values. B:
does not seem to produce results that magically render the values produced by summing and averaging Vel[x+y] into "bullshit"?
#120. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#105)
I correctly illustrate the flaw inherent in taking a momentary point velocity of a continuously decelerating proctile and ASSuming it to be an average.
BALLISTICS DATA SPREADSHEET
A1 AVERAGE VELOCITY AND TIME DIFF OVER TOTAL DISTANCE AVERAGE VELOCITY FOR EACH 75 FEET SEGMENT 2 3 B C D E F G H I J K L 4 d Time (avg) Vel[x+y] Ts=d/Vs T=Tb - Ts Tb 75 ft Avg Velocity for Segment Segment Segment 5 (ft) d/Vel[x+y] (ft/s) d/Vs ABS(Tb-Ts) +C7-C6 75 foot segment distance begin end 6 0 0.0000 3240 +75/H4 +B7-B6 +K7+75 A7 7 75 0.0237 3163 0.0664 0.0427 0.0237 3163.0000 75 0 75 8 150 0.0486 3088 0.1327 0.0842 0.0249 3016.4744 75 75 150 9 225 0.0747 3014 0.1991 0.1245 0.0261 2876.1533 75 150 225 10 300 0.1020 2941 0.2655 0.1635 0.0274 2741.7798 75 225 300 11 375 0.1307 2870 0.3319 0.2012 0.0287 2617.2620 75 300 375 12 450 0.1608 2799 0.3982 0.2375 0.0301 2490.8930 75 375 450 13 525 0.1923 2730 0.4646 0.2723 0.0315 2378.2353 75 450 525 14 600 0.2254 2662 0.5310 0.3056 0.0331 2266.7686 75 525 600 15 675 0.2601 2595 0.5973 0.3372 0.0347 2160.0657 75 600 675 16 750 0.2966 2529 0.6637 0.3672 0.0364 2057.9351 75 675 750 17 825 0.3347 2465 0.7301 0.3954 0.0381 1967.1773 75 750 825 18 900 0.3750 2400 0.7965 0.4215 0.0403 1860.3774 75 825 900 19 975 0.4172 2337 0.8628 0.4456 0.0422 1777.1863 75 900 975 20 1050 0.4615 2275 0.9292 0.4677 0.0443 1691.5924 75 975 1050 21 1125 0.5081 2214 0.9956 0.4874 0.0466 1609.7315 75 1050 1125 22 1200 0.5571 2154 1.0619 0.5048 0.0490 1531.4566 75 1125 1200 23 1275 0.6089 2094 1.1283 0.5194 0.0518 1448.4509 75 1200 1275 24 1350 0.6631 2036 1.1947 0.5316 0.0542 1384.2156 75 1275 1350 25 1425 0.7201 1979 1.2611 0.5410 0.0570 1315.8863 75 1350 1425 26 1500 0.7800 1923 1.3274 0.5474 0.0600 1250.6135 75 1425 1500 27 1575 0.8436 1867 1.3938 0.5502 0.0636 1179.8360 75 1500 1575 28 1650 0.9101 1813 1.4602 0.5501 0.0665 1127.9144 75 1575 1650 29 1725 0.9801 1760 1.5265 0.5464 0.0700 1071.1245 75 1650 1725 30 1800 1.0539 1708 1.5929 0.5391 0.0738 1016.9418 75 1725 1800 31 1875 1.1309 1658 1.6593 0.5284 0.0770 973.8184 75 1800 1875 32 1950 1.2119 1609 1.7257 0.5137 0.0811 925.3285 75 1875 1950 33 2025 1.2972 1561 1.7920 0.4948 0.0853 879.1211 75 1950 2025 34 2100 1.3861 1515 1.8584 0.4723 0.0889 843.7085 75 2025 2100 35 2175 1.4796 1470 1.9248 0.4452 0.0935 802.5405 75 2100 2175 36 2250 1.5778 1426 1.9912 0.4133 0.0982 763.3722 75 2175 2250 37 38 Total 39 1.5780 40 SUM G7:G36
#121. To: nolu chan (#120)
(Edited)
?
Illustration B: Vb using my original Average of summed Velocity values. B:
does not seem to produce results that magically render the values produced by summing and averaging Vel[x+y] into " bullshit"?
#122. To: VxH (#121)
(Edited)
#123. To: Tooconservative (#122)
There are experts out there. So why aren't we hearing from them?
#124. To: VxH (#123)
#125. To: Tooconservative (#124)
Well, it is an explanation.
#126. To: nolu chan (#120)
(Edited)
4 d Time (avg) Vel[x+y] 5 (ft) d/Vel[x+y] (ft/s) 32 1950 1.2119 1609 1950 0.86 1609 Drag Function: G1
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°Wind Speed: 0 mph
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd
Chart Range: 750 yd
Maximum Range: 50002 yd
Step Size: 25 ydCorrected For Atmosphere
Adjusted BC: 0.33
Altitude: 2000 ft
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%Range Time Vel[x+y] (ft) (s) (ft/s) 0 0.00 3240 75 0.02 3163 150 0.05 3088 225 0.07 3014 300 0.10 2941 375 0.12 2870 450 0.15 2799 525 0.18 2730 600 0.20 2662 675 0.23 2595 750 0.26 2529 825 0.29 2465 900 0.32 2401 975 0.36 2337 1050 0.39 2275 1125 0.42 2214 1200 0.46 2154 1275 0.49 2095 1350 0.53 2036 1425 0.56 1979 1500 0.60 1923 1575 0.64 1867 1650 0.68 1813 1725 0.73 1760 1800 0.77 1708 1875 0.81 1658 1950 0.86 1609 2025 0.91 1561 2100 0.96 1515 2175 1.01 1470 2250 1.06 1426
#127. To: VxH (#125)
Yeah. In the meantime, I've found this exercise to be a worthwhile learning experience.
#128. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#119)
Illustration A: Vb calculated from d/Tcalc, where Tcalc= (d=75ft)/Vel
#129. To: nolu chan (#128)
(Edited)
it cannot be used in this manner.
#130. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#129)
Meanwhile...
Answer byBlue
Confidence votes 38.3K When Q gets extremely close to P (so that there is an infinitesimal space between P and Q), then the slope of the secant line approximates the slope at P. When we take the limit of that tiny distance as it approaches zero (meaning we make the space disappear) we get the slope of the curve at P. This is the instantaneous slope or the derivative of the curve at P.
Video transcript
WHY IS YOUR CALCULATED DATA OUTSIDE THE POSSIBLE LIMITS OF A TIME ROUNDING ERROR???
#131. To: nolu chan (#130)
Drag Function: G1
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°Wind Speed: 0 mph
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd
Chart Range: 750 yd
Maximum Range: 50002 yd
Step Size: 25 ydCorrected For Atmosphere
Adjusted BC: 0.33
Altitude: 2000 ft
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%1950 0.86 1609 4 d Time (avg) Vel[x+y] 5 (ft) d/Vel[x+y] (ft/s) 32 1950 1.2119 1609
#132. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#131)
Unresponsive obfuscatory yukonesque bullshit
WHY IS YOUR CALCULATED DATA OUTSIDE THE POSSIBLE LIMITS OF A TIME ROUNDING ERROR???
Distance and time specified Time rounded to plus or minus maximum Avg velocity Avg velocity Avg velocity time for sound ABS Tb - Ts ABS Tb - Ts ABS Tb - Ts time as given max possible min possible to travel dist time as given max possible min possible B C D E F G H I J K L N O P d Time Time -.005 Time +.005 Avg Vel unadj Avg Vel max Avg Vel min t for sound ABS Tdiff unadj ABS Tdiff MAX ABS Tdiff MIN VxH Avg Vel VxH Instant VxH Tdiff (ft) (seconds) (seconds) b/c b/d b/e b/1130 ABS(c8-i8) ABS(d8-i8) ABS(E8-I8) Velocity Tb-Ts 7 0 0.00 3240 8 75 0.02 0.015 0.025 3750.00 5000.00 3000.0000 0.0664 0.0464 0.0514 0.0414 3201.5000 3163 0.0429 9 150 0.05 0.045 0.055 3000.00 3333.33 2727.2727 0.1327 0.0827 0.0877 0.0777 3163.6667 3088 0.0852 10 225 0.07 0.065 0.075 3214.29 3461.54 3000.0000 0.1991 0.1291 0.1341 0.1241 3126.2500 3014 0.1270 11 300 0.10 0.095 0.105 3000.00 3157.89 2857.1429 0.2655 0.1655 0.1705 0.1605 3089.2000 2941 0.1682 12 375 0.12 0.115 0.125 3125.00 3260.87 3000.0000 0.3319 0.2119 0.2169 0.2069 3052.6667 2870 0.2088 13 450 0.15 0.145 0.155 3000.00 3103.45 2903.2258 0.3982 0.2482 0.2532 0.2432 3016.4286 2799 0.2488 14 525 0.18 0.175 0.185 2916.67 3000.00 2837.8378 0.4646 0.2846 0.2896 0.2796 2980.6250 2730 0.2881 15 600 0.20 0.195 0.205 3000.00 3076.92 2926.8293 0.5310 0.3310 0.3360 0.3260 2945.2222 2662 0.3269 16 675 0.23 0.225 0.235 2934.78 3000.00 2872.3404 0.5973 0.3673 0.3723 0.3623 2910.2000 2595 0.3650 17 750 0.26 0.255 0.265 2884.62 2941.18 2830.1887 0.6637 0.4037 0.4087 0.3987 2875.5455 2529 0.4024 18 825 0.29 0.285 0.295 2844.83 2894.74 2796.6102 0.7301 0.4401 0.4451 0.4351 2841.3333 2465 0.4392 19 900 0.32 0.315 0.325 2812.50 2857.14 2769.2308 0.7965 0.4765 0.4815 0.4715 2807.4615 2401 0.4753 20 975 0.36 0.355 0.365 2708.33 2746.48 2671.2329 0.8628 0.5028 0.5078 0.4978 2773.8571 2337 0.5107 21 1050 0.39 0.385 0.395 2692.31 2727.27 2658.2278 0.9292 0.5392 0.5442 0.5342 2740.6000 2275 0.5454 22 1125 0.42 0.415 0.425 2678.57 2710.84 2647.0588 0.9956 0.5756 0.5806 0.5706 2707.6875 2214 0.5794 23 1200 0.46 0.455 0.465 2608.70 2637.36 2580.6452 1.0619 0.6019 0.6069 0.5969 2675.1176 2154 0.6260 24 1275 0.49 0.485 0.495 2602.04 2628.87 2575.7576 1.1283 0.6383 0.6433 0.6333 2642.8889 2095 0.6451 25 1350 0.53 0.525 0.535 2547.17 2571.43 2523.3645 1.1947 0.6647 0.6697 0.6597 2610.9474 2036 0.6768 26 1425 0.56 0.555 0.565 2544.64 2567.57 2522.1239 1.2611 0.7011 0.7061 0.6961 2579.3500 1979 0.7077 27 1500 0.60 0.595 0.605 2500.00 2521.01 2479.3388 1.3274 0.7274 0.7324 0.7224 2548.0952 1923 0.7378 28 1575 0.64 0.635 0.645 2460.94 2480.31 2441.8605 1.3938 0.7538 0.7588 0.7488 2517.1364 1867 0.7671 29 1650 0.68 0.675 0.685 2426.47 2444.44 2408.7591 1.4602 0.7802 0.7852 0.7752 2486.5217 1813 0.7956 30 1725 0.73 0.725 0.735 2363.01 2379.31 2346.9388 1.5265 0.7965 0.8015 0.7915 2456.2500 1760 0.8232 31 1800 0.77 0.765 0.775 2337.66 2352.94 2322.5806 1.5929 0.8229 0.8279 0.8179 2426.3200 1708 0.8499 32 1875 0.81 0.805 0.815 2314.81 2329.19 2300.6135 1.6593 0.8493 0.8543 0.8443 2395.7692 1658 0.8758 33 1950 0.86 0.855 0.865 2267.44 2280.70 2254.3353 1.7257 0.8657 0.8707 0.8607 2367.5926 1609 0.9008 34 2025 0.91 0.905 0.915 2225.27 2237.57 2213.1148 1.7920 0.8820 0.8870 0.8770 35 2100 0.96 0.955 0.965 2187.50 2198.95 2176.1658 1.8584 0.8984 0.9034 0.8934 36 2175 1.01 1.005 1.015 2153.47 2164.18 2142.8571 1.9248 0.9148 0.9198 0.9098 37 2250 1.06 1.055 1.065 2122.64 2132.70 2112.6761 1.9912 0.9312 0.9362 0.9262
....d ........ t ... Vxh
#133. To: nolu chan (#132)
(Edited)
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd
Chart Range: 1000 yd
Maximum Range: 50002 yd
Step Size: 1 yd
Adjusted BC: 0.33
Altitude: 2000 ft
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%
Speed of Sound: 1130 fpsRange Time Vel[x+y] (ft) (s) (ft/s) 1875 0.81 1658 1878 0.81 1656 1881 0.82 1654 1884 0.82 1652 1887 0.82 1650 1890 0.82 1648 1893 0.82 1646 1896 0.83 1644 1899 0.83 1642 1902 0.83 1640 1905 0.83 1638 1908 0.83 1636 1911 0.83 1634 1914 0.84 1632 1917 0.84 1630 1920 0.84 1628 1923 0.84 1626 1926 0.84 1624 1929 0.85 1622 1932 0.85 1621 1935 0.85 1619 1938 0.85 1617 1941 0.85 1615 1944 0.86 1613 1947 0.86 1611 1950 0.86 1609
Now tell us, Professor DonkeyChan - from the data provided, what is the average Velocity for the 75 ft segment ending at 1950 ft (1950ft, being the point at which, BTW, the instantaneous velocity is 1609fps)?
#134. To: VxH (#133)
#135. To: A K A Stone, NoluChan (#134)
(Edited)
Give it up you are looking foolish.
#136. To: VxH, A K A Stone, NoluChan (#135)
#137. To: VxH (#133)
[VxH #133] Nope. Try to keep up - - I've moved on with a revised curve that reconstructs time from Velocity and Distance,
YOUR CALCULATED DATA IS ALL BULLSHIT, AS ARE YOU
WHY IS YOUR CALCULATED DATA OUTSIDE THE POSSIBLE LIMITS OF A TIME ROUNDING ERROR???
Distance and time specified Time rounded to plus or minus maximum Avg velocity Avg velocity Avg velocity time for sound ABS Tb - Ts ABS Tb - Ts ABS Tb - Ts time as given max possible min possible to travel dist time as given max possible min possible B C D E F G H I J K L N O P d Time Time -.005 Time +.005 Avg Vel unadj Avg Vel max Avg Vel min t for sound ABS Tdiff unadj ABS Tdiff MAX ABS Tdiff MIN VxH Avg Vel VxH Instant VxH Tdiff (ft) (seconds) (seconds) b/c b/d b/e b/1130 ABS(c8-i8) ABS(d8-i8) ABS(E8-I8) Velocity Tb-Ts 7 0 0.00 3240 8 75 0.02 0.015 0.025 3750.00 5000.00 3000.0000 0.0664 0.0464 0.0514 0.0414 3201.5000 3163 0.0429 9 150 0.05 0.045 0.055 3000.00 3333.33 2727.2727 0.1327 0.0827 0.0877 0.0777 3163.6667 3088 0.0852 10 225 0.07 0.065 0.075 3214.29 3461.54 3000.0000 0.1991 0.1291 0.1341 0.1241 3126.2500 3014 0.1270 11 300 0.10 0.095 0.105 3000.00 3157.89 2857.1429 0.2655 0.1655 0.1705 0.1605 3089.2000 2941 0.1682 12 375 0.12 0.115 0.125 3125.00 3260.87 3000.0000 0.3319 0.2119 0.2169 0.2069 3052.6667 2870 0.2088 13 450 0.15 0.145 0.155 3000.00 3103.45 2903.2258 0.3982 0.2482 0.2532 0.2432 3016.4286 2799 0.2488 14 525 0.18 0.175 0.185 2916.67 3000.00 2837.8378 0.4646 0.2846 0.2896 0.2796 2980.6250 2730 0.2881 15 600 0.20 0.195 0.205 3000.00 3076.92 2926.8293 0.5310 0.3310 0.3360 0.3260 2945.2222 2662 0.3269 16 675 0.23 0.225 0.235 2934.78 3000.00 2872.3404 0.5973 0.3673 0.3723 0.3623 2910.2000 2595 0.3650 17 750 0.26 0.255 0.265 2884.62 2941.18 2830.1887 0.6637 0.4037 0.4087 0.3987 2875.5455 2529 0.4024 18 825 0.29 0.285 0.295 2844.83 2894.74 2796.6102 0.7301 0.4401 0.4451 0.4351 2841.3333 2465 0.4392 19 900 0.32 0.315 0.325 2812.50 2857.14 2769.2308 0.7965 0.4765 0.4815 0.4715 2807.4615 2401 0.4753 20 975 0.36 0.355 0.365 2708.33 2746.48 2671.2329 0.8628 0.5028 0.5078 0.4978 2773.8571 2337 0.5107 21 1050 0.39 0.385 0.395 2692.31 2727.27 2658.2278 0.9292 0.5392 0.5442 0.5342 2740.6000 2275 0.5454 22 1125 0.42 0.415 0.425 2678.57 2710.84 2647.0588 0.9956 0.5756 0.5806 0.5706 2707.6875 2214 0.5794 23 1200 0.46 0.455 0.465 2608.70 2637.36 2580.6452 1.0619 0.6019 0.6069 0.5969 2675.1176 2154 0.6260 24 1275 0.49 0.485 0.495 2602.04 2628.87 2575.7576 1.1283 0.6383 0.6433 0.6333 2642.8889 2095 0.6451 25 1350 0.53 0.525 0.535 2547.17 2571.43 2523.3645 1.1947 0.6647 0.6697 0.6597 2610.9474 2036 0.6768 26 1425 0.56 0.555 0.565 2544.64 2567.57 2522.1239 1.2611 0.7011 0.7061 0.6961 2579.3500 1979 0.7077 27 1500 0.60 0.595 0.605 2500.00 2521.01 2479.3388 1.3274 0.7274 0.7324 0.7224 2548.0952 1923 0.7378 28 1575 0.64 0.635 0.645 2460.94 2480.31 2441.8605 1.3938 0.7538 0.7588 0.7488 2517.1364 1867 0.7671 29 1650 0.68 0.675 0.685 2426.47 2444.44 2408.7591 1.4602 0.7802 0.7852 0.7752 2486.5217 1813 0.7956 30 1725 0.73 0.725 0.735 2363.01 2379.31 2346.9388 1.5265 0.7965 0.8015 0.7915 2456.2500 1760 0.8232 31 1800 0.77 0.765 0.775 2337.66 2352.94 2322.5806 1.5929 0.8229 0.8279 0.8179 2426.3200 1708 0.8499 32 1875 0.81 0.805 0.815 2314.81 2329.19 2300.6135 1.6593 0.8493 0.8543 0.8443 2395.7692 1658 0.8758 33 1950 0.86 0.855 0.865 2267.44 2280.70 2254.3353 1.7257 0.8657 0.8707 0.8607 2367.5926 1609 0.9008 34 2025 0.91 0.905 0.915 2225.27 2237.57 2213.1148 1.7920 0.8820 0.8870 0.8770 35 2100 0.96 0.955 0.965 2187.50 2198.95 2176.1658 1.8584 0.8984 0.9034 0.8934 36 2175 1.01 1.005 1.015 2153.47 2164.18 2142.8571 1.9248 0.9148 0.9198 0.9098 37 2250 1.06 1.055 1.065 2122.64 2132.70 2112.6761 1.9912 0.9312 0.9362 0.9262
d ........ given..........Vxh bullshit
[VxH]
1950 0.86 1609
Video transcript
#138. To: nolu chan (#137)
beyond any possible rounding error
#139. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#138)
How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?
#140. To: nolu chan (#139)
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd
Chart Range: 1000 yd
Maximum Range: 50002 yd
Step Size: 1 yd
Adjusted BC: 0.33
Altitude: 2000 ft
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%
Speed of Sound: 1130 fpsRange Time Vel[x+y] (ft) (s) (ft/s) 1875 0.81 1658 1878 0.81 1656 1881 0.82 1654 1884 0.82 1652 1887 0.82 1650 1890 0.82 1648 1893 0.82 1646 1896 0.83 1644 1899 0.83 1642 1902 0.83 1640 1905 0.83 1638 1908 0.83 1636 1911 0.83 1634 1914 0.84 1632 1917 0.84 1630 1920 0.84 1628 1923 0.84 1626 1926 0.84 1624 1929 0.85 1622 1932 0.85 1621 1935 0.85 1619 1938 0.85 1617 1941 0.85 1615 1944 0.86 1613 1947 0.86 1611 1950 0.86 1609
#141. To: nolu chan (#139)
This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination.
#142. To: nolu chan (#137)
By 1950 feet, VxH has "rounded off" 0.86 and amazingly calculated, by secret methodology,
#143. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#141)
This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination.
The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees.
BZZZT! Probably not, since using 0.33 instead of -0.33 produces a slower velocity:
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°
Wind Speed: 0 mph
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd [Was 25 yd/75 feet]
Chart Range: 1000 yd[Was 750 yd]
Maximum Range: 50002 yd [Was 750 yd/2250 ft]
Step Size: 1 yd [Was 25 yd/75 ft]
Adjusted BC: 0.307 [was 0.300]
Altitude: 0 ft [was 2000 ft]
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%
Speed of Sound: 1130 fps
#144. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#140)
The formula is distance divided by time.
#145. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#142)
By 1950 feet, VxH has "rounded off" 0.86 and amazingly calculated, by secret methodology,
By 1950 feet, VxH has "rounded off" 0.86 and amazingly calculated, by secret methodology, the stated flight time to his own preferred 0.82621.
[VxH]
1950 0.86 1609
Video transcript
#146. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#140)
#140. To: nolu chan (#139)
The formula is distance divided by time.
Drag Function: G1
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd
Chart Range: 1000 yd
Maximum Range: 50002 yd
Step Size: 1 yd
Adjusted BC: 0.33
Altitude: 2000 ft
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%
Speed of Sound: 1130 fps Drag Function: G1
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd
Chart Range: 1000 yd
Maximum Range: 50002 yd
Step Size: 1 yd
Adjusted BC: 0.307
Altitude: 0 ft
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%
Speed of Sound: 1130 fps
#147. To: nolu chan (#146)
Below is the bogus input data presented for this chart [boldface added]:
#148. To: nolu chan (#144)
(Edited)
[VxH at #175] LOL. It's not a rounding error Professor DonkeyChan.
=SUM(C$9:C11)/L10
=SUM(C$9:C12)/L11
etc.
Where column L contains 1 @ row 8 and =+ L8+1, =+L9+1 etc for rows 9..34
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]