BOMBSHELL: Health Ranger id's distance of 2nd shooter at LV massacre and it’s NOT the MB hotel

a reply to: Granite

I just want to know how a person from the audio can determine what is the sound of an originated shot and an echo of a shot? How do you know what shot sound to analyze and base calculations from?

a reply to: Granite
Yes, "I don't go for clickbait." That's what I said.

I take your word for it that he said he used his mass spectrometer. That's good enough for me.

originally posted by: Granite

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Granite

No. I don't go for clickbait.
A mass spectrometer has nothing to do with sound.

You are proving you did not watch ANY the video...

No need to watch the video when the claim he has made is so easily verified as being false.

I've done and still do quite a bit of audio recording, editing and analysis and I have never heard of a mass spectrometer being used to analyse audio data. It does not appear that mass spectrometry is designed to do any such task.

It's designed to measure mass.

That is the problem with many of the conspiracy BS salesmen. They use big words and scientific terms to give their assertions credence, but it only works on those that do not know what they are really talking about or those too lazy to do a bit of research.

a reply to: neutronflux

star neutron, baby....correct but the difference would be a fraction....less than medium fraction of apparent error

fancy for it'd still be a close finding.......locating a detail he can show someone on the super dooper triple snooper

a reply to: Granite

This is kinda painful. A mass spectrometer is used to determine the composition of a sample. It has nothing to do with analyzing sound.

a reply to: Phage

At the beginning of the video, the guy mentions using a mass spectrometer in his lab among his other analytical experience to establish cred.

Here's the upshot. He got the ballistics characteristics of the rounds he believes to have been fired from a website. In the audio, he identifies one set of sounds as being the sound of the bullets striking the ground and then another set which he claims to be the report from the gun.

He then measures the delay between the two and uses that to estimate the distance the rounds traveled. He does this for two parts of the audio and comes up with with an estimate of 425-475 yards for one set and something like 250 yards for the other.

I wonder if any the shot sounds were picked up by live microphones on stage, amplified, and reproduced by the sound system?

Many cellphones and video cameras have microphones sensitive to direction. Big difference on how a cell phone picks up sound if the microphone is pointed at or away from a source of sound?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Granite

I just want to know how a person from the audio can determine what is the sound of an originated shot and an echo of a shot? How do you know what shot sound to analyze and base calculations from?

Mike used his mass spectrometer to get a precise record of the sound waves, then he said he eliminated the "noise" part of the sound from gunfire sound wave.

I am no expert at this, but aware of the ballistic table for 223, 308 because I re-load my ammo.

originally posted by: Granite

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Granite

I just want to know how a person from the audio can determine what is the sound of an originated shot and an echo of a shot? How do you know what shot sound to analyze and base calculations from?

Mike used his mass spectrometer to get a precise record of the sound waves, then he said he eliminated the "noise" part of the sound from gunfire sound wave.

I am no expert at this, but aware of the ballistic table for 223, 308 because I re-load my ammo.

An echo of a shot is not noise. It’s the actual sound of the shot bounced off a surface to be heard again after the direction of travel changed. And it can be heard again for a third time if it bounces off the right surface to be heard a third time by the listener.

a reply to: Granite

He's proving mike is full of #. A mass spectrometer is not used to measure, record, analyze or observe sound period. Mike stating he used one, proves he is full of #.

a reply to: Granite

Mike used his mass spectrometer to get a precise record of the sound waves,

Not possible.

a reply to: theantediluvian

At the beginning of the video, the guy mentions using a mass spectrometer in his lab among his other analytical experience to establish cred.

Ok. That's better.

So he's an expert chemist and acoustical analyst in addition to being a snakeoil salesman who revels in clickbait.

a reply to: Ranger351

So here's some problems:

- he assumes that what he's hearing are .223s and that he's hearing them in both parts of the audio

- he doesn't account for height of the shooter/angle of the barrel

- he doesn't account for the distance from the microphone to the bullet impacts

It's all very imprecise, back of the napkin type stuff with a margin of error that is greater than the differences in delay. I would also question using a single source of audio that's undergone some compression in the device and then is re-encoded in the upload to YouTube (and I'm assuming yet another re-encode when it was ripped from YouTube). If you've downloaded much video content, you'll almost certainly be familiar with how audio can drift in and out of sync in the same video. That's why players have an option to add/remove delay.

a reply to: Granite

When you say mass spectrometer, do you mean Doppler effect?

www.merriam-webster.com...

Mass spectrometry
an instrumental method for identifying the chemical constitution of a substance by means of the separation of gaseous ions according to their differing mass and charge — called also mass spectroscopy

Can you reference and provide a cited source on the definition of audio mass spectrometry?

Doppler effect
www.dictionary.com...
often lowercase)the shift in frequency (Doppler shift) of acoustic or electromagnetic radiation emitted by a source moving relative to an observer as perceived by the observer: the shift is to higher frequencies when the source approaches and to lower frequencies when it recedes.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Ranger351

So here's some problems:

- he assumes that what he's hearing are .223s and that he's hearing them in both parts of the audio

- he doesn't account for height of the shooter/angle of the barrel

- he doesn't account for the distance from the microphone to the bullet impacts

He also does not account for the grain of the round.

He states "we use mass spec instrumentation".

Huh

originally posted by: Granite
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

[snipped] Phage is not saying Mike doesn't have a mass spectrometer in his lab or even that he doesn't know how to use one. He's saying that a mass spectrometer is not a tool that can be used to measure sound. So, if Mike says that's what he used for his calculations--no matter what those calculations turn out to be--then it simply can't be true that he used that tool for that purpose. Because a mass spectrometer is used to measure mass--as in, solid objects or material--not sound.

Now, maybe Mike misspoke and used the wrong term in his excitement, I dunno. Or perhaps you simply misheard. But it's impossible to use that particular tool to analyze sound. That's what Phage is trying to tell you. Do you see what he's saying now?

a reply to: Phage

He's seen dozens of TED talks as well. DOZENS.

a reply to: riiver

Go to :50 in the video and hear him say it.

Maybe he was referring to something like:

Spectrum Master Handheld Spectrum Analyzer

and uses wording that conflicts with the other instruments

www.testequity.com...