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: 45839
Comments: 148
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: Pinguinite (#24)
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?
Comments (67 - 148) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI 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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]