The echo time differences would only indicate the shots were from different vantage points aimed in different directions. It would say nothing of the number of shooters, one or two.

Actually it says quite a bit if you bother to examine what was actually recorded in audio where it *sounds like* two weapons are firing simultaneously.

What's the difference between Reverb and Echo?

The principle of "generations" doesn't apply to reproduction of digital video super genius.

It doesn't apply nearly as much but it is still there.

Doesn't matter. You'll just move on to inventing invisible gunmen on ledges:

I'm liking this idea.

Now about that Klingon bird of prey - Were there any related flashes or spatial distortions visible in the cab driver video?

Klingons would explain a lot.

You should start your own YouBoob channel to share these insights with the world.

It doesn't apply nearly as much but it is still there.

"Used correctly, digital technology can eliminate generation loss."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss

"Used correctly, digital technology can eliminate generation loss."

Only if you use all-original tracks.

If people are downloading and doctoring their own digital files, you will have generational loss due to compression artifacting. The same thing happens each time you edit a JPG picture.

If you edit in lossless files, you won't have generational loss. But most people don't do that outside a studio setup.

Meanwhile - the audio data says what it says: ONE shooter.

Why aren't the alleged "multiple shooters" firing at the same time - are they being polite and taking turns?

Admit it. -- At this point, you're jumping to conclusions.----- we all need to know a hell of a lot more about everything this creep was doing in the past.

No, I'm rendering an opinion --- If you have evidence to the contrary, share it.

Well, you must realize that your opinions can be viewed as conclusions, arrived at before all the evidence is in.

Evidence is being gathered, lets hope it'll be shared.

Meanwhile - the audio data says what it says: ONE shooter.

I'd still like to see an analysis from the FBI audio labs of all the videos and their sound tracks. The FBI has had considerable audio expertise for decades.

I am in the lone gunman camp too. I keep waiting for the CT fans to find a grassy knoll in Vegas where a second shooter hid.

What's your conclusion regarding the 17 seconds between:
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=mBbOFwWquAw&t=67s
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=mBbOFwWquAw&t=84s

?

What's your conclusion regarding the 17 seconds between:

I think that the taxi driver was having loud noisy farts from eating some spicy tacos earlier in the day.

That is my personal theory.

I'd still like to see an analysis from the FBI audio labs of all the videos and their sound tracks.

Yeah me too.

A time line with links to the associated video/audio should be relatively easy to produce - especially given that most (if not all) cell phones update their time automatically - and the associated video will be timestamped accordingly.

But don't hold your breath for the F.B.I. to produce it, or anything of value...

What's your conclusion regarding the 17 seconds between ------

I leave conclusions about such technology to experts. Do you style yourself as one?

If so, I'll consider your opinion, while I await others. Fair enough?

A time line with links to the associated video/audio should be relatively easy to produce - especially given that most (if not all) cell phones update their time automatically - and the associated video will be timestamped accordingly.

Not only that, but in a crowd of 22 thousand at the concert, you would expect hundreds (certainly) or thousands (probably) to be holding up smartphones to record it. The videos could be synced to the action on stage and you could rather easily derive a proximate location in the crowd from which it was recorded.

So I think there may be some "rich" A/V/location data to be gleaned and sifted. I can only assume the FBI is doing that but we have no reporting on it.

I keep waiting for the CT fans to find a grassy knoll in Vegas where a second shooter hid.

How hard is it to convince a culture of individuals who've been indoctrinated to believe they can change their gender... of, well, anything?

I leave conclusions about such technology to experts.

Uhuh. The same "experts" reviewing Hillary's emails.

Breath, Holding... NOT.

I leave conclusions about such technology to experts.

Your last two posts are not an answer, so we're done. -- Feel free to babble on.

Wile E. Paine - Consteeetutional "expert" Super Genius fails again.

Funny how you can't seem to render an opinion when actual facts are involved.

Funny how you can't seem to admit you're not an expert about the 'actual facts' (if they are facts) you've posted..

I know I'm not such an expert.

It's simple science and math.

I know I'm not such an expert.

"EDUCATE THE COMMON PEOPLE, THIS IT IS THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE TO EFFECT AND ON A GENERAL PLAN" --Thomas Jefferson

Gee, I don't get the impression Ol' Tom expected folks to sit with their head up their wherever waiting for an "expert" to explain things.

Your "conservative" milage may vary.

CBS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNPrR9pP51E

Las Vegas Cover Up: Video Shows 3 Extra Missing Windows On West Side of Mandalay Bay Hotel

Qronos16
Published on Oct 8, 2017

Antifa Literature Video footage of the Mandalay Bay’s exterior captured the morning after the massacre proves that three windows on the west face of the building were knocked out in addition to the two windows the media reported to be broken in the shooter’s suite and the adjacent room.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO_wq9dv8Gc

Mandalay Bay Casino: New Images and Questions *GRAPHIC*

Headlines With A Voice
Published on Oct 3, 2017

- - - - - - - - - -

What's the difference between Reverb and Echo?

If you must know, echo is a return of the same sound after it has bounced off a distant object.

Reverb is created electronically to mimic echo, but it originates from the same speakers being used as your source.

Las Vegas Cover Up: Video Shows 3 Extra Missing Windows On West Side of Mandalay Bay Hotel

That was not a good video. Do you have a better video or some live footage that shows it?

Reverb is created electronically to mimic echo,

Bzzzt.

www.physicsclassroo m.com/mmedia/waves/er.cfm

[nc #47] It means you have a vivid imagination or a third or fourth generation tape.

[Vxh #55] The principle of "generations" doesn't apply to reproduction of digital video super genius.

It does when the people creating the different versions are of unknown identity or motivation or reliability. The later generations are of unknown veracity. Copying is not 100% acurate, and compression may be used for Youtube posting.

The super genius who presents your audio analysis identifies his masterpiece as being second generation. What was on the taxi driver's phone or whatever is the first generation. Unless he made his copy directly from her, he cannot produce a second generation. Assuming the Youtube video came directly from the taxi driver's phone, it would be second generation. Unless your super genius was using the taxi driver's recording device as his source, he did not even have second generation.

Audio analysis presented at your #26:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CypkzhGr8FU

Flashes vs Sound Analysis of Cori Langdon's Mandalay Bay Taxi Video

From 0m34s to 0m46s, your super genius states,

"There is an indication of the first flash that we can see in the video. It can't be seen probably in this rendering because I am doing a second generation rendering...."

Your super genius says he did a second generation rendering, and as a result of his second generation rendition, he claims that the viewer cannot see the first flash.

As you claim generations are bullshit, please explain what your super genius is talking about.

What was on the taxi driver's phone or whatever is the first generation. Unless he made his copy directly from her, he cannot produce a second generation.

Even that has compression artifacts. Recording HD video in raw uncompressed (lossless) format takes vast amounts of storage. No smartphone can do it. Nor can any handheld cameras that are affordable to consumers.

So even first-gen smartphones and consumer camcorders have some inevitable compression artifacts. And it only gets worse as you edit and recompress the video.

[VxH #58] What's the difference between Reverb and Echo?

- - - - - - - - - -

[nc #83] If you must know, echo is a return of the same sound after it has bounced off a distant object.

Reverb is created electronically to mimic echo, but it originates from the same speakers being used as your source.

- - - - - - - - - -

[VxH #85] Bzzzt.

www.physicsclassroo m.com/mmedia/waves/er.cfm

- - - - - - - - - -

Bzzzt. Your anonymous internet source with the broken link is not indicative of a super genius response, but that of a pedestrian dullard.

In addition, the term you used was specifically reverb.

I do not get word definitions from an anonymous internet source unrelated to English usage. Anonymous Youtube word usage on the internet does not change actual meaning, nor does resort to a different word. I use a top notch expert source dictionary.

You explicitly used the term Reverb. You could have looked it up in a dictionary. Or you could DJ and you would learn the difference between reverb and echo.

Bzzzt. As you want to know the difference between reverb and echo, here follows the sourced expert lesson.

Reverb. n. an effect whereby the sound produced by an amplifier or an amplified musical instrument is made to reverberate slightly. · A device for producing such an effect.

Reverberate. v. [intrans.] (of a loud noise) to be repeated several times as an echo: her deep booming voice reverberated around the room. · (of a place) appear to vibrate or be disturbed because of a loud noise: the hall reverberated with gaiety and laughter. · [trans.] archaic return or reecho (a sound) ....

Archaic very old or old-fashioned. · (of a word or style in language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart old-fashioned flavor.

The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.

Usage of reverberation to indicate return or echo is archaic. In currently accepted English usage, it may mean a loud noise repeated several times as an echo, her deep booming voice reverberated around the room.

So even first-gen smartphones and consumer camcorders have some inevitable compression artifacts. And it only gets worse as you edit and recompress the video.

Yes. All of that is correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ukY_Qy4TCQ

Fact checking VEGAS

LNT
Published on Oct 3, 2017

"There is an indication of the first flash that we can see in the video. It can't be seen probably in this rendering because I am doing a second generation rendering...."

His video is a screencap of him using the OpenShot video editor on a fairly modern Windows machine; this editor also runs on Linux and Macs. It takes a variety of video types as inputs (using the FFMpeg library to import them) including WebM (VP9), AVCHD (libx264), HEVC (libx265) and the usual MP3 and AAC audio types. OpenShot outputs to a variety of other formats (MPEG4, ogv, Blu-ray and DVD video, and Full HD videos).

I used DownloadHelper, a Firefox extension, to choose a version of the video to download. The choices were:

• 1280x720 - HD720 - MP4
• 480x360 - Medium - MP4
• 480x360 - Medium - WEBM
• 320x240 - Low - 3GPP
• 176x144 - Low - 3GPP

I grabbed the 720p H.264 version. Here are the video specs:

MPEG-4 (Base Media / Version 2): 17.5 MiB, 3mn 27s
1 Video stream: AVC
1 Audio stream: AAC
Overall bit rate mode: Variable
Overall bit rate: 707 Kbps
Encoded date: UTC 2017-10-06 02:46:55
Tagged date: UTC 2017-10-06 02:46:55
gsst: 0

The video is only 513Kbps, 1280*720 (16:9), at 30.000fps, AVC (High@L3.1)(CABAC/ 1 Ref Frames). The audio is 192Kbps, 44.1KHz, 2 channels, AAC (LC).

Since it is a screengrab, we are definitely seeing a shrunk version of what the supergenius saw on his screen. I find it odd that he didn't include a finished version so people could see it at full resolution. At any rate, with a 720p 513Kbps H.264 video stream, you're lucky if you can see anything at all. That is really low quality video, especially for a night scene.

We really don't know what the original footage from the taxi driver's phone was. So necessarily, a shrunken version shown in a screencapped video of an editor and compressed heavily by YouTube is not considered first-generation material. For that, you need a lossless format which no smartphones support. So any first-gen original video is going to be 720p or 1080p h.264 video, in all likelihood. And it would have been 4Mbps - 12Mbps video, not this puny 513Kbps crapfest that we're seeing from YouBoob.

I am suspicious though. He could have just played a pixel-per-pixel original video and pointed at it with his mouse. Why the shrunken version and screencapped that way? It makes no sense if you want to accurately convey the original footage.

He might also have applied some filters to try to make those flashes more visible. We just don't know.

However it is entirely fair to discuss how this video has been recorded originally and the various stages of scaling and compression we are seeing. The use of the term first-generation or second-generation cannot be construed in the same way as we applied those terms to tape. But the cumulative effect of scaling and recompressing and screencapping cannot be denied, whatever term you choose to use to describe this degradation.

the cumulative effect of scaling and recompressing and screencapping cannot be denied, whatever term you choose to use to describe this degradation

Correct. We are definitely not seeing the result of a bit for bit copying process. We are seeing the effects of multiple lossy processing.

Using advanced video processing software, you can do a lot of fake video. Using a tool like Nuke Studio, for instance. Or Nuke Non-Commerical and then you render your edits and just screencap the full playback. My point being, you can get incredibly powerful video editing and special effects generation using freely available software now. And if you have a big profitable YouTube channel, you can just buy the full Nuke Studio. You can look at this page to see how they used Nuke's compositing in the action scenes of Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. There are literally hundreds of thousands of trained people in America who know how to use Nuke software. Not as many as Photoshop but still a lot. So you have a lot of talent out there to generate any and all kinds of fake videos.

Gateway Pundit: Las Vegas Gunman Targeted Massive Aviation Fuel Tanks

Those are 43,000 gallon fuel tanks that he shot at from 2,000 feet away.

That is a very handy little graphic they produced.

Reverb can be reproduced electronically, but it doesn't have to be.

I worked with a few anti terrorist physical engineers prior to 9/11 and they used to laugh at post commanders worry some sniper could take out their fuel farms and cause an explosion. They would explain that a puncture and spillage (these were smaller tanks than the AV tanks in question) were possible and even an incendiary would just cause a heck of a fire but doubtful an explosion.

I guess too many generals watched Rambo movies. :-)

Reverb can be reproduced electronically, but it doesn't have to be.

Reverb. n. an effect whereby the sound produced by an amplifier or an amplified musical instrument is made to reverberate slightly. · A device for producing such an effect.

The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.

You cite some anonymous person on the internet about a word you did not use. I cite a world renowned dictionary for the definition of the word you actually used. In any case, your usage for a different word is considered archaic.

We could also just be seeing fakes.

We could certainly be seeing fakes. Even where a picture is real, a picture of two windows broken by a hammer does not prove bullets came out of them.

One theory is that there were no flashes because the shooter used a suppressor and stood well back in the room. Simple room lights are clearly visible, but muzzle flashes are not. And, of course, a suppressor complicates explaining the sound that was clearly recorded by the taxi lady.

The story sort of resembles Lee Harvey Oswald shooting magic bullets out of the Texas School Book Depository.

Have you heard of Scott Edmisten? It is a curious possible connection. This is from Monday, October 2nd.

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/law-enforcement/2017/10/02/Loaded-pistols-two-fully-automatic-machine-guns-900-rounds-found-during-traffic-stop

Johnson City man arrested after loaded pistols, two machine guns, 900 rounds found during traffic stop

Becky Campbell
Updated Oct 2, 2017 at 5:15 PM
bcampbell@johnsoncitypress.com

As the country was still reeling from the deadliest shooting attack in U.S. history, Washington County sheriff’s deputies arrested a man on a traffic stop, then found a cache of weapons — including what officials called two machine guns — and ammunition in his car.

Sheriff Ed Graybeal said officers spotted a vehicle traveling 55 mph in a 30 mph zone on Old Jonesborough Highway around 4 a.m. Monday. The officer turned on his cruiser’s lights and siren to make the stop, but initially the vehicle sped up. About a half-mile from the initial stop attempt, and after speeding up to 80 mph, the car pulled over.

Scott A. Edmisten, 43, 1915 Clearwood Drive, Johnson City, was arrested because his license was suspended for failure to appear in court on an unrelated matter. After officers took Edmisten into custody, they found the weapons: a loaded .357-caliber Magnum, a loaded .45-caliber semi automatic, a .223-caliber fully automatic AR rifle, a .308-caliber fully automatic AR rifle, more than 900 rounds of ammunition and survival equipment.

Edmisten was charged with speeding, felony evading arrest and possession of prohibited weapons. Neither of the automatic weapons were registered, and there were no serial numbers on them, the sheriff reported.

“The guns, he had made them fully automatic himself,” Graybeal said, adding that the AR 15’s receivers had been replaced to convert the weapon. “If you know what you’re doing, you can get the parts and do that.”

At the Washington County Detention Center, Graybeal said Edmisten made threats toward the arresting officer and other staff and lunged toward investigators who were trying to question him. Because of Edmisten’s aggressive behavior, Graybeal said officers asked for a bond hearing before Edmisten could post bail.

Investigators contacted the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives because of the unregistered fully automatic guns, Graybeal said.

http://time.com/4969885/tennessee-submachine-guns-scott-edmisten/

Man Found With Arsenal of Automatic Weapons Had Recently Lost Custody of His Kids

Time.com
Rebecca Reynolds Yonker / AP
Oct 04, 2017

[excerpt]

Washington County Sheriff Ed Graybeal said Scott Edmisten won't talk, so officials are still trying to determine why he had the weapons, as well as a mask and black fatigues, when he was pulled over for speeding before dawn Monday.

You might find guns with serial numbers filed off, but who makes/distributes guns with no serial number, if that is what was meant?

You might find guns with serial numbers filed off, but who makes/distributes guns with no serial number, if that is what was meant?

As the Clark County sheriff demonstrated repeatedly, sheriffs sometimes just shoot their mouths off stupidly.

Chances are that there are some serial numbers or they were filed off.

Beyond that, what advantage is there to removing serial numbers on these guns? Converting them to full-auto is what is going to put him in prison. The serial number issue is fairly minor by comparison. I'm not sure what jail time he'll get for this. Maybe 5 years?

I guess too many generals watched Rambo movies. :-)

The generals are about like the rest of us, I think. If something is an unknown, we reach into our storehouse of fake knowledge from watching too many silly movies and come up with this stuff.

SMH.

The difference between Reverb and a simple Echo is that Reverb is a resonant effect rendered by multiple instances of the same wave pattern in the same space.

Ever heard a sax player in the subway? Ever sing in the shower? REVERB. No electronics required.

And that FACT renders your assertion:

"Reverb is created electronically to mimic echo, but it originates from the same speakers being used as your source."
nolu chan   posted on  2017-10-08   17:14:23 ET

FALSE.

The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.

You're being silly. Reverberation is an effect of sound reflection and absorption and has been studied extensively since the 19th century, long before anyone made some analog or digital reverb unit for music and recordings.

Wiki: Reverberation

Although it seems like an exercise for the retarded, let's examine Wiki's definition:

If you're saying that "he said reverb and reverb means reverb" and insisting that he was somehow talking about electronic musical effects, that's just silly.

Clearly VxH was speaking of reverberation, a well-known phenomenon for well over a century, predating electronic music, analog/digital recordings, etc.

The difference between Reverb and a simple Echo is that Reverb is a resonant effect rendered by multiple instances of the same wave pattern in the same space.

You are evidently too dumb to realize that in the context you used it, reverberation in such definition would tell zero about a distant object. It can only function with the meaning echo, as in direct reflection. See my next post.

You're being silly. Reverberation is an effect of sound reflection and absorption and has been studied extensively since the 19th century, long before anyone made some analog or digital reverb unit for music and recordings.

No, in translating time of sound travel to straight line distance, I will demonstrate that you and VxH are being silly. First I will put the conversation in context, and then show why reverberation in any sense other than echo is nonsense. And I will show why the VxH echo and distance claims are absurd, creating a shooter approximately midway between the Mandalay Bay and the event location.

The reverb section of burst B *sounds like* the burst from around the corner at 1:40.

I think that's what's being misinterpreted. It's reverb - not a second shooter at the far window.

These two bursts are audibly very, very different. I am specifically speaking of the bursts and not the echoes.

As shots were taken from more than one vantage point, the echo times of bursts may not be comparable. The echos may have returned from different objects at different distances. The echo time differences would only indicate the shots were from different vantage points aimed in different directions. It would say nothing of the number of shooters, one or two. It does not measure the distance of the shooter(s) to the same distant object.

They could do echo tests to see if both echo times can be duplicated from the 32nd floor vantage point to the taxi location.

I did not comment on reverb and made very explicitly clear that I was talking two seperate bursts and not reverb. The the shooter(s) shot from two different vantage points, in different directions, the echo times from one would be different than the echo times from the other, as recorded at the taxi location. They do not directly compare.

Shots were taken from one window at the crowd. Shots from the other window were apparently taken at the gas tanks. Why would the echoes be, in any way, comparable, at the taxi location?

My response to saying they could do echo tests to duplicate the timing at the taxi location was met with, at #58,

What's the difference between Reverb and Echo?

If he had wanted to tell me what he meant, he had ample opportunity to do so. I am not his secretary or administrative assistant.

Reverb. n. an effect whereby the sound produced by an amplifier or an amplified musical instrument is made to reverberate slightly. · A device for producing such an effect.

Reverberate. ... [trans.] archaic return or reecho (a sound)

Archaic very old or old-fashioned. · (of a word or style in language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart old-fashioned flavor.

The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.

When the best you can do is some anonymous person on Wikipedia, versus The New Oxford American Dictionary, as far as word definitions, you lose.

Reverberate is not applicable except as echo. If the sound wave were to leave the muzzle of a gun and reverberate around 10 reflective surfaces before arriving at another location, e.g., a taxi at ground level, the time it took to bounce hither and yon would not tell you the distance to any third point. It may tell you the distance the sound traveled, but not the path the sound traveled.

Instead of answering a question of what he meant by the terms used, he decided to pose a smart-ass stupid question.

I gave him the definition of the word he used. In context, the word he used, and you repeat, is officially archaic.

As he preferred to be a smart ass, I schooled him about the proper meaning of the word reverb. His usage is archaic; i.e. it is incorrect in modern usage. Reverberation has no application to determine distance. Except as a direct echo, you cannot meaningfully render reverberation distance as a straight line that the round or the sound passed.

The picture of something or other at #58 and repeated at #68 (and at another thread #2 is unsourced to anything.

The underlying assumptions must be bullshit. Sound does not travel to a distance where someone hears it and it just reverses course. It reflects off an object and changes course. A recording cell phone does not make the sound turn and go back from whence it came. In this case, it was not recorded returning to the point of the gunfire, but to a ground level taxi. From 32 stories up, the sound could travel line of sight unobstructed to the reflecting object. The time someone recorded it along the way is irrelevant. After reflecting back, it may have encountered numerous obstructions at ground level on its way to the taxi.

The echo image is here:

http://www.pbase.com/wm25burke/image/166344785.jpg

The image comes from,

http://www.pbase.com/wm25burke/root&view=recent

William Burke's (M.F.A.) galleries on pbase.

So did the other one with the Klingon warship:

http://www.pbase.com/wm25burke/artisticlizance

Back to #32, incompatible with the information on the echo image. It is the VxH information that is incompatible with the Burke information, and any possible reality.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=32#C32

Here's what I see between the last bullet sound and the last report:

 

T1	T2	Elapsed Time	Total Distance
17.69	18.76	1.07	1208.80ft

 

Where T1 is the last bullet sound and T2 is the last report sound.

1.07 seconds between T1 and T2 = 1208 ft. 

1208 ft from the Mandalay Bay, per Google earth, puts us right about where the video is being taken.

With no source, the definition of terms is deliberately kept secret. Of course, a report is a sound, so comparing a bullet sound to a bullet report is gibberish. Which, of course, is why I asked to clarify the terms.

Report. 2. a sudden loud noise, of or like an explosion or gunfire.

The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.

He says,

Where T1 is the last bullet sound and T2 is the last report sound.

1.07 seconds between T1 and T2 = 1208 ft.

1208 ft from the Mandalay Bay, per Google earth, puts us right about where the video is being taken.

What he wrote could be stated as, "Where T1 is the last bullet sound and T2 is the last bullet sound sound." If the context is bullets, a report is the sound made by a bullet being fired.

Notice that in the echo picture, the total distance reflected for 2.31 sec is 2612.57, and the echo distance is half that, 1306.28.

If he really measured the total distance at 1208 ft, the echo distance would have been half that ~604 ft., and we would have a newly discovered second shooter between Mandalay Bay and the concert site.

The echo is half the distance because half the distance is going to the reflective object, and the other half is coming back.

This assumption is still not wholly correct as the sound going could be unobstructed line of sight, and the return to the taxi could bounce off numerous obstructions, throwing off the distance calculation.

The echo time only indicates distance as indicated if the sound travels in a straight, unobstructed path. Doing so at ground level to get to the taxi is highly unlikely.

A shot fired from the side window also does not have a straight path to the taxi.

Moreover, no muzzle flashes were seen coming from the 32nd floor. A simple room light was visible through windows, but these muzzle flashes, if there were any, were not. The proffered explanation is that the shooter stood well back in the room, and used a suppressor. That may help with the invisible muzzle flashes, but not with the sound travel to the taxi. Try to draw a straight line from well back in the room to the taxi. The sound wave would go from the muzzle to the window and not exceed the size of the window, or it is travelling through a thick hotel wall.

reverberation in such definition would tell zero about a distant object.

That's correct. Nowhere did I imply otherwise. In this context Reverb is a source of sound that's being incorrectly interpreted as a second weapon firing simultaneously.

Let's see if you're smart enough to figure that out.

Sound does not travel to a distance where someone hears it and it just reverses course.

Actually you might want to consider the vortex manufactured by a super-sonic projectile, especially in the context of automatic gunfire.

Sound will follow the path of least resistance - back to the source.

and the return to the taxi could bounce off numerous obstructions,

That's why understanding the difference between REVERB and ECHO is relevant. How you coming along with that?