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:45284 Comments:148
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.
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.
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....
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.
Every Human is ONE of those at birth and, despite the latest fashionable Anti-Fa-LGBTQXYZWherever Transhumanist- Postgenderist, Newpeak - that. IS. Reality.
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.
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).
...by a kook. A kook who wants to make money off ads on YouBoob peddling CTs to even more gullible kooks.
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 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.
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 :-(