Las Vegas shooting revisited - the sounds tell the story

So I decided to take a look back at the video's of the shooting with fresh eyes and ears and I wanted to see if I had a new perspective or if I might have learned something in the past year. What I noticed is that the echo's are off by a lot. When listening to the video's taken from down in the crown, there are a lot of mixed up gun sounds that are confusing as to whether they are echos or another gun being fired. In many cases it sounds like there are 2 guns firing at similar speeds, but they finally synchronize then pass - so at one point you hear both guns firing at the same exact time then they start separating again. This happens when fire rates are different speeds.

There are also huge problems with echos. Most of what are considered echos are about .15-.2 seconds after the shot and they are significantly muffled compared to the crack of the main sound. The problem is that the venue is about 1300-1500 ft (allowing for height/hypotenuse) which means sound takes over a second to reach those recording in the venue (also means the bullet gets there about .6-.8 seconds before the sound).

The other problem for echo's is the trajectory of the sound and the surrounding buildings, none of which were facing the proper direction for much of any sound to reverberate off of them, nothing with the proper angles or height to bounce off of. There are some taller buildings (still not angled correctly - which is a MAJOR issue) down the strip but they are so far away the echo would't be anywhere near as loud as what was recorded and reported as an echo (by calculations the sound is way too loud in recordings and MUCH too early even if bouncing off the closest building). So even if it was the buildings the shots echo'd off of, the amplitude is too high for it to be an echo AND it comes MUCH too early to be an echo - unless the laws of physics were suspended that night.

I did look at a number of different guns firing in automatic and I did find some that sounded a lot like what we heard and there is a distinct difference between what we were told and what we heard. Anyone who has been down range of shots being fired knows that a guns sounds much different when sitting behind it vs what it sounds like 1200ft away, not to mention if there is lead flying inches to feet from your head. The sounds that were recorded in the venue sound a lot like what is heard from behind the gun. To me it sounds almost as if the speakers might be making the gun fire sound and possibly a suppressed gun (with flash & sound suppressor) on ground level firing along with the sound from the speakers. The timeing delay and the odd extra muffled shots continuing 2-4 rounds after the loud cracks (loud cracks being the speakers) stop - which people would have thought it was echo's and not a suppressed gun from near the crowd. For all we know someone could have been inside one of the massive speaker setups (a dummy speaker) firing out, though I think that highly unlikely.

After listening to all the audio many times, the story of a single gunman from near the top floor doesn't make sense at all. Having a shooter on the ground (or 2) with suppressed guns along with sounds coming through the speakers does make sense as far as the echo's and overlapping gun shots.

Now as far as the speaker setup, this doesn't mean that the festival provider (stage/sound people) were in on it because much of what is done today is done wirelessly and it would be easy to hijack a channel, use an open channel, or overlap a channel (piggyback) sent from the stage to the mixer/amps and then dump it into the speakers. The crew wouldn't know it was happening at the time and might not have proof of it happening afterwards, depending on their setup and if/how they are recording the concert.

This is the only explanation that I have come up with that accounts for the disparity in echo times and amplitudes as well as over lapping echos, wrong rate of fire for the echos and some other oddities I'm still working through.

IIRC there were a number of people who reported shots coming from the edge of the crowd and a "shooter on ground level" and I also believe one or two of these people have since died mysteriously (how many others from the concert have died that weren't injured in the shooting?). I would also guess that if a shooter were on the ground, they would hit the people closest to them and they would probably be the ones who died (those closest to the shooter). If there were many people with more than one bullet injury I would be HIGHLY skeptical of the theory of a shooter on the 32 floor and be much more inclined to believe an on the ground shooter, especially if the 32 floor was using a "bump stock". no body (of paddocks capability - not a "gun guy") is placing multiple rounds in the same person at 1350-1550 ft using a bump stock, at night, standing 1/2 out a window - BUT a person 30-100ft away? Yes, easily.

Oh, yeah. Where are the ballistic reports?

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

There are a LOT of variables in a scenario like that...which means it's very possible to overlook some information which could drastically alter perceptions. I don't have the equipment to do a full scale simulation of the event like NVIDIA did with the moon landing, but I do believe it's possible with the right minds.

It is likely though that even investing a massive amount of funds to do a full scale simulation would result in net to nothing. Even after numerous investigations into JFKs death, we're still left wondering. Just too many variables for my type of science.....

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

There are a LOT of variables in a scenario like that...which means it's very possible to overlook some information which could drastically alter perceptions. I don't have the equipment to do a full scale simulation of the event like NVIDIA did with the moon landing, but I do believe it's possible with the right minds.

It is likely though that even investing a massive amount of funds to do a full scale simulation would result in net to nothing. Even after numerous investigations into JFKs death, we're still left wondering. Just too many variables for my type of science.....

A2D

Well with this scenario it is much easier than the moon landing. Here we can use their report against them and use the recordings from the venue, the hotel and those driving by, for the source of sound(s). I think with that it would be very easy to disprove the official story. Even doing some simple math with the distances, speed of sound and timing the echo's can prove what it CAN't be and I'm pretty sure we can rule a lot out with those numbers. Then when we have multiple over lapping echo's, echo's long after primary sound fades (so no source for echo & no loss in amplitude ruling out a double echo) can show that there were other sources of fire and or more than one shooter.

Doing this alone is kind of difficult, it is much easier in a group when you can bounce ideas off each other and talk things through, some people see things differently and pick up other things that are missed. I just know that the sounds are way off for the original story. Now IDK if the video uploads (sound) have been doctored or not though...

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Even doing some simple math with the distances, speed of sound and timing the echo's can prove what it CAN't be and I'm pretty sure we can rule a lot out with those numbers

Get crackin' then.

I immediately thought there was at least more than one type of gun being fired.
First impression was a 7.62 and a 5.56.
They have distinctively different sounds.

That's because there were numerous weapons stockpiled in the room with Paddock. Including 14 ar-15s and 8 ar-10s... (10s fire a 7.62 iirc)

A2D

originally posted by: skunkape23
I immediately thought there was at least more than one type of gun being fired.
First impression was a 7.62 and a 5.56.
They have distinctively different sounds.

I really don’t think a high grain 7.62 round was fired. That sound is very unique.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The problem is that you can't be sure where each round hits pavement. So there will be a lot of variance in sound.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
That's because there were numerous weapons stockpiled in the room with Paddock. Including 14 ar-15s and 8 ar-10s... (10s fire a 7.62 iirc)

A2D

*edited - added the quote from above that was somehow removed when posting!!?

That is true but you should always be able to determine distance for the time to travel and any echos, those would be constant if the shooter was in the same room. Granted there is a slight difference from within the venue but since each recording has the sound, the distance and echo can be analyzed from that.

I didn't hear any rounds hit the ground. If you did do you remember any specific videos that had it, any links, descriptions of what was in it, even length of video possible (or key words in video title?).

IMO the sounds heard from within the venue sounded like a recording done from 20-100ft away and then they adjusted the sound so it would be different in the speakers giving appearance that it was from further away. Now if you heard the shots form 1200-1500ft, there is a MAJOR difference than the sounds 20-100ft away.

I'm working on finding people with AR-15's and AR-10's and want to do a sound comparison on my property at various distances (from 50-1,500 ft), recording on/with a couple different cell phones. The only problem is I don't have surrounding buildings for the so-called "canyon effect" . I can put up a backdrop 800ft behind the target. So 1200-1500ft from gun to target (recording cell phone) then another 700-800 ft behind it a large wall to reflect/echo back to the cell phone at the 1200-1500ft distance - for a total of 2800 - 3100ft for the sound to travel (incuding the echos). the problem is finding someone with these guns! (even here is one of the most conservative counties in the US!!)

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Come out to Vegas for a few days and I can find all the guns your heart desires. And I know someone that has some land that we could easily somewhat simulate the area. Though mountains are not the same but would provide some good recordings for ya.
And as a bonus and if you don’t mind paying about $7 a round my neighbor has a Barrett 50 cal

I shot it a few times then went home to an ice pack. Too big for me but man it was worth it!

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I have an AR-15, I know a lot of people here who do, I am in SW Ohio by the way, I do not however know a single person who owns an AR-10. I would have to say that you may have to settle for something like a Remington 700 chambered in .308. Which is a touch more powerful than the NATO 7.62. But i am thinking would make a sound that is pretty dang close. You could not obviously use a bump stock with a bolt action though. Oh i forgot .308 and 7.62 are the same round, just the .308 has more punch.

My first impression from the sound of the firing was not an AR-10, i thought AK-47. Which has a very distinct sound. Also that the AK is much more widely accessible than the AR-10. AR-10 is a manufacture specific weapon that is only made by 2 manufactures. You can take the parts from a Colt AR-15 and interchange into any other, but the AR-10 must be parts from the same manufacturer. You also generally have to order an AR-10 than just go buy one. Due to availability unless one absolutely has to have the AR-10 i would say if you want 7.62 your going to buy the AK.

Anyway good luck with your research. I am a combat vet, tanker, i was on the front lines and know what it sounds like to be shot at. I have always said the audio betrays the narrative.

7.62x51 NATO - gun model M240B - Belt fed - rate of fire - 550-950 RPM - selectable on settingsI listened very closely to about 30 different weapons, either full auto w/mags or beltfed as well as those with bump stocks. I looked at every 5.56 & 7.62 NATO rifles as well as 7.62x39 & 54R Y the 5.45x39 rounds. I think there is possiblity that it could have been a 7.62x39 hence the relatively low number of deaths compared to a faster bullet at that distance.

I came to the conclusion that there are a few that fit very closely, the M240 fits very closely to some of the shots I heard, especially from the Taxi driver video:

7.62x51 NATO - gun model M240B - Belt fed - rate of fire - 550-950 RPM - selectable on settings

7.62x51 NATO - gun model - Mk 48 - belt fed - MGA SAW 620-780 RPM

5.56x45 NATO - M249 SAW - 50, 100 & 650-850 RPM (modifiable to shoot lower speeds of 250-700 as well)

5.56x45 NATO M4 carbine - Magazine fed - very similar to AR15 - 580 - 900 RPM

5.56x45 NATO - AR-15 w/ bump stock - Rate of fire dependent upon user - 400+ RPM in good hands

I included 2 for this b/c the first shows a "non-gun" person using it, more like how Paddock would probably shoot unless he had a lot more experience than they are telling us.

Go to 2:10 to start. IDK how to embed at a specific time


Start at 2:30

AR-15 vs AK47 mag dumps - 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39

Same comparison diff vid

AR10 in ful Auto 7.62x51 NATO - magazine fed

start at 0:27 seconds

AR style chambered/running 7.62x39

AR style chambered/running 7.62x39

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Even doing some simple math with the distances, speed of sound and timing the echo's can prove what it CAN't be and I'm pretty sure we can rule a lot out with those numbers

Get crackin' then.

Cracka azz honky... lol you want to help? It's on the ToDo list. I'm working on another project ATM with Charlottesville which has a lot of mathematical analysis.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Come out to Vegas for a few days and I can find all the guns your heart desires. And I know someone that has some land that we could easily somewhat simulate the area. Though mountains are not the same but would provide some good recordings for ya.
And as a bonus and if you don’t mind paying about $7 a round my neighbor has a Barrett 50 cal

I shot it a few times then went home to an ice pack. Too big for me but man it was worth it!

Hmmm. I might have to take you up on that! There are plenty of guns round here, I just need to find someone who has the ones I want to test. Got a friend who tends bar at a hunting/sportsman's club, so I can ask them.

A Barrett, I've always wanted to do that and would gladly pay $7 to do so! I might have a line on some cheap ammo since a guy I know "lost" his (gambling IIRC) but he kept the ammo.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Just let me know man.
Within my street we have most guns you can think of. Zombies beware!
One neighbor just got a Scorpion EVO 3! Can’t wait till next weekend

There is a story hidden in the various video soundtracks to be discovered so I agree with your thread premise 100%. I feel confident saying that there were more than 1 guns firing at some times. As from where I have felt from the beginning that they came from the air so the helicopter theory has always been my suspicion. Shepard Ambellas has done the most work on that and there'smany on his site if you do search: www.intellihub.com...

This video by John E. Hoover (formerly #IamJohnCullen) shows the most likely helicopter candidate:

originally posted by: UncleReamus
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I have an AR-15, I know a lot of people here who do, I am in SW Ohio by the way, I do not however know a single person who owns an AR-10. I would have to say that you may have to settle for something like a Remington 700 chambered in .308. Which is a touch more powerful than the NATO 7.62. But i am thinking would make a sound that is pretty dang close. You could not obviously use a bump stock with a bolt action though. Oh i forgot .308 and 7.62 are the same round, just the .308 has more punch.

My first impression from the sound of the firing was not an AR-10, i thought AK-47. Which has a very distinct sound. Also that the AK is much more widely accessible than the AR-10. AR-10 is a manufacture specific weapon that is only made by 2 manufactures. You can take the parts from a Colt AR-15 and interchange into any other, but the AR-10 must be parts from the same manufacturer. You also generally have to order an AR-10 than just go buy one. Due to availability unless one absolutely has to have the AR-10 i would say if you want 7.62 your going to buy the AK.

Anyway good luck with your research. I am a combat vet, tanker, i was on the front lines and know what it sounds like to be shot at. I have always said the audio betrays the narrative.

I agree with you that from some angles it sounded like an AK but it also really sounds like a M240 in other places. The things about the AK is that if it was, ballistics would tell us this 100% as opposed to their "story". I was waiting to hear what the coroner reports are/were and what evidence was found at the hospital before I threw out all the ways that they could make mistakes and slip up on claiming bullet callibers from what gun (I know it's paranoid but with the # of mistakes these people make - they always F things up when it comes to details - it's like they have a 12yr old technical writer for the "story) - I didn't want to put of things that could be read and then they avoid their mistake. Yeah chances are low, but I could see them reading forums like this trying to see what people have caught so they can revise their story to incorporate/remove/mitigate the errors either by adding new facts/lies or omitting other evidence - understand what I mean?

I just have a VERY hard time thinking that an AK was being fired at 1300-1500ft. There are too many reasons that would be a dumb idea, on top of all the guns in the pics looking like AR platforms (yeah I know there are mods to run 7.62x39 & 5.45x39 on AR platform...).

Lots to still look at. I just really want more of the official reports! How do we get the data? FOIA? Can we do that for this case? I'll chip in if a group wants to request it.

About the FOIA for LV shooting. The FBI is in the middle of a coverup. Just look at some of these links. If it isn't enough to make your blood boil, IDK what is.

www.ammoland.com...

thewashingtonstandard.com...

www.latimes.com...

www.ammoland.com...

freedomoutpost.com...

the sound doesn't tell the story. what sound are you hearing? you don't know, we will never know. all we can say is it is more than likely a bullet being fired. it will never be known at the moment of paddock's shot what the cartridge was, what the weight of the bullet was, what the case load out was. all these are going to affect sound, echo, report, time of arrival, etc...

paddock used bump stocks, given the nature of a bumb stock, a bumb stock will never give you a consistent rate of fire. that's why the rate of fire dips and accelerates.

paddock more than likely used different variation in the rounds he fired. by that i mean he likely used different brands of ammo, different bullet weights, different bullet types. don't forget he used custome ammunition as well.

paddock fired using 100 round magazines. im sure he didn't load each magazine with the exact round specification, very possible the magazine contained a mix of different specifications (some bullets were heavier or lighter than the others).

lastly most audio and video is from a cell phone. not the best peice of equipment to use to accurately record something as complex as different bullet speeds echoing off of bulidings all around you. not to mention where exactly at is the shooter and the location of the whomever or what ever is recording the.

audio analysis here is flawed. your gonna have to use generalizations for "typical" .233 rounds or 5.56x45mm rounds. and your gonna have to use General distances between shooter and recorded. in this instance generalizations will screw up analysis big time

I am very familiar with the bark of an M-4.
Not my favorite weapon.
I'll take my Mossberg Roadblocker in any close range situation.
Long range, an FN Fal .308.