Forensic acoustic proof of SECOND shooter in the Las Vegas massacre

Good presentation- 30 minutes long but very interesting.

Share
  • DavidinNorthBurnaby

    I smell a rat. A muzzie rat. Just to be on the safe side the Trumpster should round up all muzzies and Deport them.

  • k2

    Well, that certainly looked pretty airtight, as he presented it. A couple of minor quibbles:

    the type of round used was crucial to determining the distance of the shooter – how did he decide that the second shooter was using the same rounds as the first? Was only one type found? I haven’t followed this part of the story closely, so perhaps this is the case.

    And secondly, though no doubt he had good reason to be contemptuous of the FBI’s investigative techniques in this case, his mocking tone might interfere with them giving him a reasonable listen, and so was self-defeating. But, overall, a fascinating and well argued thesis: unless I see a good counter argument, I’m convinced.

    • The second shooter round type occurred to me too, as well as ‘why did he choose .223 for shooter #1?’

      To my knowledge, there has been no information released about calibers.

      I didn’t care for the Harry Potter etc mockery. That was unprofessional.

      • Jaedo Drax

        Possibly, but if you look at his other videos he comes across as a bit of a click bait nutter.

        Unlike on TV, it’s going to take time to figure all of this out.

      • Exile1981

        The FBI said the rifle he used was an 223 AR-15 with a bump stock, of course not all the weapons in the room pictures are 223 but it’s a point for the analysis.

        If he round was a 308 or a 223 from a M240 as some people claim then the initial speed is slower but it drops off slower as well.

    • gareth

      His timing charts etc assume the rifle is aimed at the same point throughout as opposed to sweeping the crowd. There could be tremendous variability in the distance travelled by each round. I know little of guns and ballistics, but I don’t really trust the guy. His case is a little too airtight if you ask me. He starts strong but I’m far from convinced.

      • Mike Drolet

        Also go to his website. He runs an analysis company that analyses everything and he is the only one who seems to work for the company (or at least there is no evidence of anyone else). A lot of the stuff that his company does is described as being a lot better than the competition and they/he do a very wide range of analyses.

        He might be right, but take with a grain of salt.

  • DMB

    Las Vegas Hotels and Casinos are plastered with security camera video’s. Where is the security footage? There should be a video recording of the killer or killers transporting large duffel bags on that very day! Particularly from the very Hotel were the primary killer was found.

    • mauser 98

      this is one time security video cannot be disappeared, malfunctioned,oops we lost it

  • Watchman

    Three issues:
    1) He keeps mentioning the sound of nearby rounds striking pavement. This is at best a simplification. The higher pitched sounds are the sonic shock wave of the bullet reaching the recording microphone on someone’s camera. The venue was grass so there is not a lot of chance of bullet impact sounds, although many people who have hunted know the sound of bullets hitting flesh, but this is again not high pitched. It’s the same principle of hearing the sonic boom from a military jet or the Concorde.
    2) He dismisses the echos, but this is an important analytical tool to determine shooter location. The easiest way of trying to use this is to make a sound at the alleged shooters position at weather conditions as close to the night of the shooting and record this from the locations of each camera’s recording location.
    3) You can’t just assume the point of aim was the centre of the venue, although it is an OK first approximation. You need to map out the actual locations of each recording camera. He did mention this, though.

    • Right, he glides over the issue of the position of the camera relative to the “impact point” and the muzzle. If the camera is positioned between the two, that would tend to close the gap between the two sounds somewhat. If the camera was significantly closer to the muzzle, the gap could all but disappear.
      Also, he is wearing a rather large firearms on his hip in an exaggeratedly exposed carry holster- ya know, I carry too and I don’t accept the current public take on the shooting- but let’s not get carried away. Ragging on the investigation, posturing as a “simple” scientist while flashing a hand cannon- it’s a bit of a tip off to me that he’s a bit, shall we say, unsteady?

      • Watchman

        The impact point is only relevant for analysis as it marks the last place the sonic boom of the bullet can come from. If you are in-between the impact point and the shooter, the impact point is immaterial, since the sound you hear will be the bullet’s shock wave passing you as it follows the path of the bullet in a spreading cone-shaped shock wave. The delay in hearing the shock wave sound will be the sum of the time taken for the bullet to get to the closest distance the supersonic bullet ever comes to you plus the time it takes sound to travel from that closest point to you. The delay in hearing the gunshot is the distance to the gun divided by the speed of sound in the air at that temperature. We shall ignore the effects of echos and density of air along the path to keep it simple.

        What this means if the shooter is firing at least 90° away from you, the closest distance of the bullet to you will be the distance to the shooter, and so the sonic boom of the bullet will likely be masked by the sound of the gun. If the shooter shoots near you but misses you by 50 metres, there will be an extra 147 millisecond delay to the sound of the bullet, which is not insignificant. If it misses you by just one metre, there will be only about a 3 millisecond extra delay.

        Sorry for the long comment.

  • mauser 98

    no more of the wounded have died.many released….perhaps wounds from flying concrete would agree with ‘spray and pray’ shooting described

    • Watchman

      I thought at first the venue was grass, but after a second look now believe the surface may have been artificial grass over asphalt or concrete, which tends to support bullet fragments or spall kicked up by bullet hits. This might explain the lower number of people still in hospital than might have been caused by direct impact of bullets. Of course, the hospital(s) would be under stress and would be wanting to get as many people home so they can concentrate on the more seriously wounded.

  • simus1

    Given the number of rounds fired, the characteristics of the impact points would be much more definitive than a lot of tech jargon mumbo jumbo.

  • ismiselemeas

    Don’t worry, before long it will be an inside job that the joos carried out using ex mossad and cia hitmen. The coordinator helped orchestrate 9/11 and Trump is covering up Weinstein’s assaults because he had a TV show. Wait, the last part is true.

  • ismiselemeas

    One of the problems with “grassy knoll” conspiracy theories is that they distract from the real task at hand. In the case of 9/11 these theories debase the memories of those who died in the attack. These “armchair experts” are nothing more than funeral hoggers jumping at an opportunity to steal the limelight. In many cases they can get paid for it by running Google ads on their sites. It’s obscene. The only thing more disheartening than these people is the abject stupidity of the general public who buy into it. The numbers are not small and point to a very real problem in society at large. People are willing to believe anything. If this is your electoral base it becomes very easy to manipulate the masses. It is extremely dangerous.