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

a reply to: Granite

He stated it outright that he wouldn't watch it. You're just giving us all a reason not to since a mass spectrometer doesn't measure nor can it measure sound. Your insistence is actually debunking the entire vid.

a reply to: Granite

That guy is the king of WOO and snake oil.

a reply to: RickyD

Oh baby you may as well be speaking elvish. I'm no techy. If not for programmed in tutorials I'd never even be able to use my phone. But I appreciate the effort your expended.

I don't get why you think the microphones location is important.

It's not like the bullet hits are going to bounce of off a different path to the microphone than the report sounds.

The lag time is just that, the lag time. Now, there are other factors to consider such as weight of bullet (grain), etc.

But to actually calculate just the distance he's got a pretty good method. Now where the location of the microphone comes into play is when it would be time to triangulation the sounds.

But just to measure lag time, no I don't think the microphones location is important.

a reply to: Granite

This is the notification article only, but well worth a short read.

and we will never see any credible data

because mr adams has no lab - he is just a grade 2 cockwomble

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Granite

This is the notification article only, but well worth a short read.

and we will never see any credible data

because mr adams has no lab - he is just a grade 2 cockwomble

While a grade 2 Cockwomble would certainly merit turning the other cheek (heh), I do believe the FBI is trying to do this very thing right now.

a reply to: Tempter

But just to measure lag time, no I don't think the microphones location is important.

How can the position of the microphone not be important?

Sound has to travel, and that's usually about 400 metres per second.

If a sound wave is created by the firing of a gun, the noise has to reach you before you can hear it. If the sound wave bounces off an object that is further away from you than the gun is, the sound wave will have to travel from the gun, to the object, and back to you, and you will hear an echo that is correspondingly delayed.

You won't get a clean "BANG!" You'll get something more like "BANG.... BANG...bangangangnBANGngggnnngggg" And the initial "BANG!" will never match the moment of firing unless the microphone is physically beside the gun.



Unless I've misunderstood you, you're claiming that the distance of the microphone from the gun, and the distances between any sound-reflecting objects and the microphone (and the gun) are irrelevant. But that's impossible. Have I got the wrong end of your stick, here?

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: riiver

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

I didn't claim he didn't say it. I was just trying to clarify what Phage was saying.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Granite

Can't see it. Don't care.
Adams is a snakeoil salesman who revels in clickbait. Always has been.

Ah, close-mindedness on a conspiracy site, makes sense. Natural news, I will admit, isn't a bastion of truth, but good god use a little discernment. Not everything Mike Adams or Alex Jones covers is bullsh*t. Some of what they cover has merit if you don't automatically put up the blinders and scoff about someone being a supplement/snakeoil hocker and actually look into the info and documents presented.

You've stopped learning if your automatically shutting things out from consideration due to preconceived prejudices, and that isn't a good thing. This is also why I take issue with ATS blacklisting sources. I don't need someone to decide for me if it a worthy source or not. I think we are all able to make those decisions without ATS "deciding" for us.

As for this shooting, it stinks to high hell, no motives, a constantly changing narrative, a level of pre planning that screams severe mental health issues that obviously went unnoticed to some extent. The prerequisite prescription medication involved, and a ton of unanswered questions and inconsistencies.
At this point, anything is possible.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Granite

Can't see it. Don't care.
Adams is a snakeoil salesman who revels in clickbait. Always has been.

At least Adams has put forth efforts to discern the truth here. What have you done but dismiss his evidence without seeing it. Phage you are better than trolling. Watch it and then comment.

Not to mention the official investigation thinks there were more than one person involved.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: RickyD


How do you determine originating shot vs echo to determine distance by time?

If you cannot separate originating shots from echoes, label the echoes, use the data as a base line to determine if the shots came from a different location, then analysis is useless. Sorry.

Are you serious? Are you trying to say that an original shot and an echo of that same shot will sound the same and originate from the same place, making it impossible to tell the two apart? Because even I know the two will sound different and originate from different locations...

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.

I'm not 100% sure but, to me, it sounds like you're confusing a ricochet with an echo? A ricochet is when a physical object strikes a surface and it (or a part thereof) changes direction whereas an echo is when a sound bounces off something and changes direction. Sorry if I got it wrong but it sounded that way...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: RickyD

You think he has a very expensive laboratory?

Very...very expensive...like the most expensive... what other credentials do you need Phage?

Wow? Like the most expensive? His lab cost more than the LHC? That's awesome, tell me more...

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: [post=22750892]727Sky[/post

If different people were firing, there will be different types of ammunition found, by clinicians and/or by site investigators. So let's see if anything turns up to support this claim.

Do you think that if different ammunition types are found, that they will tell us?

How possible is it, given the crowd present at the festival, that perhaps some of the crowd, in the confusion, drew their own guns and started shooting back? Scattering other shells and maybe even hitting other people caught up in the carnage by mistake?

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: [post=22750892]727Sky[/post

If different people were firing, there will be different types of ammunition found, by clinicians and/or by site investigators. So let's see if anything turns up to support this claim.

Do you think that if different ammunition types are found, that they will tell us?

How possible is it, given the crowd present at the festival, that perhaps some of the crowd, in the confusion, drew their own guns and started shooting back? Scattering other shells and maybe even hitting other people caught up in the carnage by mistake?

It's possible.

Do you think they would tell us if they found different ammunition types?

originally posted by: KansasGirl

It's possible.

Do you think they would tell us if they found different ammunition types?

That depends really, if it can be described away as having been return fire from the concert-goers or LEO's they would tell us that's what it was. However if there is a shadowy hand behind all this and that info would help to unveil that, it would never see the light of day...

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.

I'm not 100% sure but, to me, it sounds like you're confusing a ricochet with an echo? A ricochet is when a physical object strikes a surface and it (or a part thereof) changes direction whereas an echo is when a sound bounces off something and changes direction. Sorry if I got it wrong but it sounded that way...

No, I am not. Do you understand acoustics at all? An echo is the sound waves of the originating shot the changes direction after bouncing off solid surfaces. The sound wave will go down range. If it hits an object, the sound wave will change direction. It can be easily confused as a shot coming from a different direction. Why? Because it’s an actual sound wave of a shot bouncing around.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: neutronflux

Didn't see this until page 5 lol...my bad. You don't need to model anything as all of that is secondary and inconsequential. What you would need to do is use the room as the position...then figure out how long it would take sound to travel to the approximate location of the microphone then compare it and see if the audio files match up. If they don't then you know it they were coming from somewhere else and that in itself is all the evidence needed to upset the OS. Just how I would approach it...I am not an expert or I'd make a hellova lot more money...but I am also much more knowledgeable than the average Joe about audio subjects in general.

You did not address the main concern. If you don’t identity the echoes and isolate/ filter them from the audio, how do you know which shot sound to base the calculations off of to determine distance? An echo is the sound of the originating shot bouncing off solid surfaces. The same sound wave changing directions to be recorded at different times.

So I sorted through this whole thread,
MASS SPECTOGRAPHY? to analyze sound profiles, I guess, IF YOUR ON ACID AND CAN SEE THE SOUND as a breakdown in radiant spectra, DOH.
Beside all of that, I did watch some vid from someones phone, and it was very interesting.
You could clearly hear rifle fire, then a split second later the rounds hitting the pavement and ricocheting. Certainly fired from the same weapon, same # of rounds as # of splats, on the same cadence. Now, on the surface that sounds reasonable, but the .223 round, from a standard M4 length barrel is over mach 2. So, those rounds should have arrived before the sound.
Now, as the vid continued, you did hear bullets hitting the pavement, followed by the report.
You could hear echoes, but they were clearly echoes, but at one point you could hear two different cadences overlapping, and rounds from cadence hitting, some of which were for sure people, it has that sound. But, you could not hear the rounds from the overlapping cadence, as though those rounds are going some where else.
Amazingly I have a pretty good ear given my profession and hobbies, and unless police were returning fire with automatic weapons, there were two weapons firing.
One with a dtdtdtdt,dtdtdtdt,dtdtdt (bump stock?), and one dttttdttttdtttt(natural auto?), with a completly different note and quality to the report.
?
Couldnt have been in hotel, they'ed be on camera coming and going.......unless there is some real movie #e going on, with hacked vid feeds and what not.
Now to go full on ATS, did he own or have access to a short wave radio?
Remember, long dormant number stations re- activated a couple of years ago.
He starts to throw up flags a couple years ago.
The guy was an accountant for the feds in the '80s, and is a secret super sniper?, how re-activated cold war mole is that?
The soviets(russians) were that good, all of that "turned on by a codeword from a randon phone call" is not crazy talk.
This doesnt have "wow" factor of an Islamist effort, they are big extravgent things, with explosions and over the top violence, like a Micheal bay movie.
This was a lot like the Ukraine during the protests, snipers firing from an elevated position into a large crowd.
?????

Just something to think about

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.

I'm not 100% sure but, to me, it sounds like you're confusing a ricochet with an echo? A ricochet is when a physical object strikes a surface and it (or a part thereof) changes direction whereas an echo is when a sound bounces off something and changes direction. Sorry if I got it wrong but it sounded that way...

No, I am not. Do you understand acoustics at all? An echo is the sound waves of the originating shot the changes direction after bouncing off solid surfaces. The sound wave will go down range. If it hits an object, the sound wave will change direction. It can be easily confused as a shot coming from a different direction. Why? Because it’s an actual sound wave of a shot bouncing around.

Which is exactly why it's easy, to the trained ear or using software, to differentiate between a gunshot and a ricochet. The soundwave weakens as it travels and can sound different as it distorts depending what it's bouncing off, if I recall correctly...