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:45300 Comments:148
I've listened to the first 20 mins of it, which seems to be a complete presentation of his case. I like that he's knowledgeable, or at least seems to be, in this field.
But I think there's a flaw in his analysis, and that is that all the math is based on the premise that the second shooter was firing .223 rounds just as Paddock was. Adams even admits early in the video that the distance & shot report tables is different for different types of rounds.
But it's already known that Paddock has 1-2 dozen different firearms in the room. Some were .223, but I think others were of differing calibers. So perhaps Paddock fired .223 rounds some of the time, but also switched to different rifles of higher or lower caliber which would have differing acoustic lag times at the same distance. Has Adams accounted for that possibility?
There is also the speculative nature of matching bullet impact sounds with shot report acoustics. I.e you might hear on a recording 6 shot reports but only 5 bullet impacts, in which case determining which bullet impact sounds match which reports could be speculative, and if you get that wrong then you'll be wrong about the distance of the shooter.
Paddock switching rifles might also account for the differing shot acoustic recordings from the taxi at the base of tho hotel.
...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.
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.
What isn't he an expert on?
He spreads CTs and misinfo to ignorant people on:
chemtrails
fluoride in water
dangers of antiperspirants
dangers of laundry detergents
monosodium glutamate
vaccines causing autism
GMOs
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.
But I think there's a flaw in his analysis, and that is that all the math is based on the premise that the second shooter was firing .223 rounds just as Paddock was. Adams even admits early in the video that the distance & shot report tables is different for different types of rounds.
It is a weakness in his analysis, no doubt, but he does a good job of showing the calculation with a known round.
I cannot adopt the conclusion of proof of a second shooter based upon the limits of the analysis, and the limits of my own knowledge. I believe his analysis for a selected round is sound, but the conclusion has insufficient support.
Paddock switching rifles might also account for the differing shot acoustic recordings from the taxi at the base of tho hotel.
To his credit, Adams recommends that the FBI do a triangulation study. This is done on site, not just in the lab.
Get recordings of a discrete gunshot sound from multiple locations taken at the event and identify the locations and the time differences for when the same sound was recorded. That may be a bit of work for the FBI, but it can be done.
Adams used the single source sound analysis, the available data. Add serveral more recording locations, and the time differential will act to locate the point(s) of origin.
If cell phone location by geography is difficult, perhaps cell tower data or GPS could help pinpoint location at a specific time.
When the submarine Scorpion went down in the Atlantic, it imploded or exploded, but in either case it made a loud noise underwater and sunk to the bottom. We had a series of sonar listening stations (now obsolete and closed) at Iceland, Canada, the USA and the Caribbean islands. They picked up the report at slightly different times, depending on how long it took the sound to travel to each of them. To find the sunken sub, a ship trailed a sonobuoy (a device which can make a loud noise) underwater and set it off (repeatedly). We would all record the sound and HQ would check the time differences. When the time differences at the various stations matched the actual event, the sonobuoy was over the sunken sub. It was a lengthy trial and error process.
If several recording devices can have their location fixed at the time of the shooting, the same principle will apply to find the location of gunfire. If a gunfire noise from the 32nd floor cannot replicate the time differential at the several recording locations, they must look elsewhere until the sound arrives at the various recording locations with the known time differences.
Notably, many internet Marines and Army types appear certain that they hear the sound of a belt fed machine gun.
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.
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.
"For example, if the microphone is adjacent to the victim (such as a 911 recording might be), the equation for determining the distance becomes:t=tb - ts= d/Vb- d/VsIf the muzzle blast duration obscures the sound of the bullet hitting the target, simple inspection of the sound waveform is insufficient. "
In response to your request regarding this accusation against an LV Police Officer:
I found/took their formula, built a spreadsheet, and plugged in 223 balistic data generated via shooterscalculator.com:
Important to note:
* Presently we don't have information regarding specificaly which weapons and amunition were used. So the ballistic data was generated with a guestimate 223 configuration.
* My DAW (Sonar) doesn't appear to have the capability of capturing a sound spectrogram like the ones the authors of the study produced; but after reading their commentary on the blast noise obscuring impact noise, I filtered the crowd noise, and filtered/looked alternately for the report and then the high energy impact sounds - and I revised T1 and T2 accordingly.
More accurate results could possibly be obtained if the corresponding burst sequence on the Taxi-Driver video is identified and aligned, as the taxi-driver's audio contains only the muzzle blast and echo. It doesn't have the crowd and impact noise to obscure the muzzle events.
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.
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.
STARBURST AMMUNITION IS BASICALLY AN INCENDIARY ROUND LOADED WITH 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.
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 yep - we don't know yet which weapons / ammunition were fired in association with the audio events.
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.
He's presented no "proof".
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.
Don't you find it a little odd that he doesn't present any actual data or audio?
I don't. He's presenting his numeric analysis which is indeed easy to understand, and playing audio clips would not impress the lay audience. Those who are in a position to verify what he says because they have the raw audio data he's working with can certainly confirm it on their own, if inclined.
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.
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.
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.
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.
His title "Forensic acoustic proof" is a material misrepresentation of fact - aka FRAUD.
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.
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.
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.
No, with a scope, he would have seen when he hit the tanks.
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.
That security guard panicked him, ruined his timetable all around.
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.
#39. To: Pinguinite, tooconservative, a k a stone, nolu chan (#37)(Edited)
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?
psy·cho·sis
s+ÈkMsYs/
noun
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
[The Architects of Western Decline:
A Study on the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism]
"According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call eitherideological subversion,active measures, orpsychological warfare.What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.
The first stage being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.
Most of the activity of the department [KGB] was to compile huge amount / volume of information, on individuals who were instrumental in creating public opinion. Publisher, editors, journalists, uh actors, educationalists, professors of political science. Members of parliament, representatives of business circles.
Most of these people were divided roughly into two groups: those who would tow the Soviet foreign policy, they would be promoted to positions of power through media and public manipulation; [and] those who refuse the Soviet influence in their own country would be character assassinated OR executed physically, come Revolution. "
--KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov
--Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
Notice how Adams switched from his usual baloney and now presents himself as a ballistics expert.
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.