United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Video claims shooter dressed as police
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=LAS+VEGAS ... a=videos&iax=1&iai=qMxn7hpXmk4
Published: Oct 8, 2017
Author: Planet X Investigations
Post Date: 2017-10-08 15:41:01 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 56756
Comments: 186
Video claims shooter dressed as police Poster Comment: Video claims shooter dressed as police
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-119) not displayed.
.
.
.
#120. To: VxH (#116)
The taxi was hardly at or near the origin point. It was 338+ feet away. The study placed a microphone "a few centimers" from the muzzle, not 10,302+ centimeters away. The taxi was 338 feet down, some distance out from the building. Even if directly opposite the taxi, the muzzle had to travel 338+ feet to get to the taxi. That still take 0.299 seconds for the muzzle blast to reach the taxi from 338 feet. Adjusting for your cited claim (at #118) that NYT reporting "suggests that Paddock was positioned directly above the camera at this point," with the taxi directly below the window, your blather has not materially changed the problem with your chartoon. The taxi microphone was not a few centimeters from the muzzle, it was over 338 feet away. The problem, of course, is related in your reference study. http://www.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf Using Sound of Target Impact for Acoustic Reconstructions of Shooting Events At page 2: t = ts + tb = d/Vs + d/Vb where d is the target distance, Vs is the velocity of sound, and Vb is the average bullet velocity over the distance. At page 5: At page 6: Your recording is at a taxi over 338 feet away from the muzzle. You can do all the calculations you desire and the microphone will be no closer to the muzzle. The muzzle was likely around the corner, about 338 feet up, and some angular distance away from the microphone in the taxi. The taxi did not pick up the sounds of the bullets striking people on the ground over 1200 feet away. The muzzle blast echoed back, but you do not know where from, or what path it took to the taxi at ground level. A taxi recording indicates the muzzle blast with a delay by the time the sound took to reach the taxi, about .299 seconds at 338 feet. During that delay, the muzzle blast is on its way to some reflective surface which redirects the sound by some route to the taxi at ground level. The elapsed time at the 338+ foot distant taxi is not the elapsed time of the muzzle burst soundwave out and back. You ignored the ~0.299 second initial delay to reach the taxi, and you have no idea what reflective surface(s) redirected the sound before the echo arrived at the taxi. You do have a nice picture with circles on it though. Also, as there was no firearm seen protruding from any window, if Paddock was the shooter, he and the firearm were inside the room. The sound of muzzle blast had to travel out through the hole in the window in a directional manner. No straight path to the taxi was available.
The report of what, reflected from what surface?
Which is irrelevant for the purpose of measuring the elapsed time between the initial Report sound event and the corresponding Echo event at the same location, at the bottom of the wall directly beneath the shooter.
Explain the difference between the Echos observed in Burst A and Burst B. The shooter is in the same position. The taxi is in the same position. The "reflective surfaces" haven't moved. And the surface of the ground, along which the report shockwave radiated back from SOMEWHERE (probably closely relative to the aiming point), hasn't moved either.
[nolu chan #121] The report of what, reflected from what surface? [VxH #123] Explain the difference between the Echos observed in Burst A and Burst B. The question was, The report of what, reflected from what surface? I am not interested in your evasive non-answering invitations to a snipe hunt. If you do not know what the report was, or you do not know what it reflected from, say so. In such case, your times are meaningless for your chosen calculations.
Which is irrelevant unless you had a microphone at the location of the muzzle blast, not 338+ feet away. At ~.299s the sound reached the taxi. Also at .299s the sound had traveled 338 feet toward whatever reflective surface it found in the distance. As the taxi is not at the location of the muzzle blast initiation, and your nonsense does not meet the conditions of the study which stipulated a microphone a few centimeters from the muzzle. The taxi was over 10,000 centimeters away.
The Report observable at T1 in Burst A and Burst B - which correspond to the observable ECHOED events at T2 in Burst A and Burst B.
LOL. Have your donkey look again. The formula you pulled out of the study is to determine the distance to the SHOOTER from the microphone. The study does not address the calculation of the distance to the target from the microphone. Also the ECHO'd events are not Bullet impacts - they are the echo'd muzzle blast shock waves.
It would be a positive number expression of time. On your spreadsheet chartoon, notice that you calculate T = Tb - Ts. You calculate elapsed time as the time it took the bullet to travel, minus the time it took the sound to travel. The correct formula should be T = Ts – Tb = d/Vs – d/Vb. As the bullet is supersonic, and sound is a constant, the sound would travel 400 yards in 1.06s and the bullet would travel in less than 1.06s. Subtracting 1.06 from a smaller number will always yield a negative number. At 1200 feet, you calculate Tb as 0.448578s, and Ts as 1.062s and calculate the T as -0.6126, negative 0.6126 seconds. The average donkey could recognize that something is wrong when the result is negative time. Just what do you think happens in negative 0.6126 seconds? You could at least recognize that if you get a negative number, you have stated the required formula backwards, and you proceeded to perform the calculation backwards, and present the bass ackwards result of your misunderstanding of the study you looked at. Moreover, while you state backwards that T = Tb - Ts, your spreadsheet never defines what T is supposed to represent. Negative 0.6126 is the time of what? What is the significance of this negative 0.6126 seconds (other than to demonstrate you did not understand the reference study)?
LOL. The difference in time, 0.6126, is an ABSOLUTE value. Sign is irrelevant.
T is the absolute value of the difference between Tb and Ts -- which corresponds to the elapsed time between T1 and T2 that is OBSERVED in the audio recording's amplitude graph. It is that correspondence that is then used to find the range - which was generated from the ballistic data for intervals of 75 feet.
>>The correct formula should be T = Ts – Tb = d/Vs – d/Vb. Nope. You're not even reading from the relevant part of the paper - where the microphone adjacent to the victim scenario is discussed. http://ww w.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf That's the same formula I have in my illustration:
If the guy "dressed like police" was a shooter as alleged - the Elapsed Time between Bullet Impact sound events and Muzzle Report sound events would be much nearer to zero than what the audio shows. So, Is that "DEBUNKED" enough for ya?
I think everyone wants to grab the mantle of science for themselves and deride each other as kooks. Which may be mostly true. OTOH, the official investigation is so miserably bad that you can't blame people for making up their own explanations when the FBI has botched it this badly.
It is relevant when calculated and displayed on a spreadsheet. You explicitly calculated for and displayed the negative value. Had you calculated for an absolute value, a negative value would not appear. If your formula in the cell does not say it is an absolute value, you do not produce an absolute value.
No, I read the correct part. The formula is correct for a supersonic bullet only if the value is explicitly expressed as an absolute. Otherwise, the correct value is derived by changing the formula. Either will work. You did neither and derived negative times and published them that way.
>>No, I read the correct part. LOL Here's what you quoted: ==================== A microphone was placed a few centimeters from the muzzle to record both the muzzle blast and the sound of the bullet hitting the deer. The time recorded between the muzzle blast and bullet striking the target represents the sum of the bullet time of flight (tb) and the time for the sound to return to the microphone from the target (ts), nolu chan posted on 2017-10-25 16:15:25 ET https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=120#C120 ==================== And this is the correct section of the paper that deals with a microphone AT THE TARGET, the scenario where the "shooter dressed as police" video in question was taken. http://ww w.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf >>The formula is correct for a supersonic bullet only if the value is explicitly expressed as an absolute The formula is fine just the way the authors of the paper wrote it. The negative time is perfectly acceptable IF you actually understand what the value and chart are saying: The sound of the Report (Ts) event was recorded 0.6126 seconds after Tb and that time differential corresponds to a distance of 1200 ft from the shooter.
I've always thought it likely that Jefferson's first objection to modern American government would be to the monument they built in his memory. He just wasn't that kind of guy. I think that famous personalities in history could only speak to their own times. We like to imagine or pretend that they were some wise sages, imparting timeless wisdom for the ages, blah-blah-blah, insert three fingers and think deep thoughts, etc. The truth is that the great men of history were creatures of their own times and only capable of speaking to the great issues of their times. And placing them on pedestals and trying to pretend that they were speaking to the issues of our time is just laziness or political hackery. You might just as well start asking WWJT (What Would Jesus Tweet?). Well, obiously, Jesus wouldn't tweet anything and he wouldn't even imagine it. And if he could imagine it, he wouldn't bother to tweet. We are all inescapably products of our own times.
Have you ever been there? It's not the man/statue that's being memorialized so much as the foundational American ideals for which there are trail-heads on each of the four walls. TRUTH IS GREAT AND WILL PREVAIL. People who don't understand Science will be bamboozled by those who do, or worse.
The difference in time between the Bullet sound event and the Muzzle Report sound event corresponds to a shooter distance of approximately 1350 feet away. Is the guy dressed like a policeman 1350 feet away? NO. So the claim of the video subject of this thread, that "shooter dressed as police" - is DEBUNKED.
I never grasped why they thought there was any factual basis for this claim to begin with. It just seemed like Kookbait to me, beginning to end. It was intended to appeal to the kooks and make some money for the con-men who created it when the kooks kept clicking on and reposting their kookery around the internet but especially on Fakebook and Twit-ter.
I give them the benefit of the doubt. They mistook the bullet events as gunfire coming from the flashlight bearing police officer. Then their imagination took over.
They have a need for their kookery. It is integral to their worldview, to their opinion of themselves and their denigrating opinions of others. They start jonesing for a kookery within a few hours of any major tragedy. It happens over and over. 9/11, Newtown, Boston marathon, Vegas massacre, you name it. It is a very consistent pattern. It's a noxious kind of neurotic behavior. And the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone points out they are actual kooks ... oy vey.
They are a product of the culture that created them. Bezmenov described the process. Marcuse and Co. implemented it. Now we have multiple generations of individuals raised by individuals who are disconnected from reality. The Soviets were planning on that not ending well for us.
Here's what you quoted: ==================== A microphone was placed a few centimeters from the muzzle to record both the muzzle blast and the sound of the bullet hitting the deer. The time recorded between the muzzle blast and bullet striking the target represents the sum of the bullet time of flight (tb) and the time for the sound to return to the microphone from the target (ts), t = ts + tb = d/Vs + d/Vb nolu chan posted on 2017-10-25 16:15:25 ET https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=120#C120 You are an ass. How many times did #120 explicitly say it was about your lame attempt to use the taxi video? The taxi was hardly at or near the origin point. It was 338+ feet away. The study placed a microphone "a few centimers" from the muzzle, not 10,302+ centimeters away. The taxi was 338 feet down, some distance out from the building. Even if directly opposite the taxi, the muzzle had to travel 338+ feet to get to the taxi. That still take 0.299 seconds for the muzzle blast to reach the taxi from 338 feet. Adjusting for your cited claim (at #118) that NYT reporting "suggests that Paddock was positioned directly above the camera at this point," with the taxi directly below the window, your blather has not materially changed the problem with your chartoon. The taxi microphone was not a few centimeters from the muzzle, it was over 338 feet away. The problem, of course, is related in your reference study. http://www.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf Using Sound of Target Impact for Acoustic Reconstructions of Shooting Events At page 2: t = ts + tb = d/Vs + d/Vb where d is the target distance, Vs is the velocity of sound, and Vb is the average bullet velocity over the distance. At page 5: At page 6: Your recording is at a taxi over 338 feet away from the muzzle. You can do all the calculations you desire and the microphone will be no closer to the muzzle. The muzzle was likely around the corner, about 338 feet up, and some angular distance away from the microphone in the taxi. The taxi did not pick up the sounds of the bullets striking people on the ground over 1200 feet away. The muzzle blast echoed back, but you do not know where from, or what path it took to the taxi at ground level. A taxi recording indicates the muzzle blast with a delay by the time the sound took to reach the taxi, about .299 seconds at 338 feet. During that delay, the muzzle blast is on its way to some reflective surface which redirects the sound by some route to the taxi at ground level. The elapsed time at the 338+ foot distant taxi is not the elapsed time of the muzzle burst soundwave out and back. You ignored the ~0.299 second initial delay to reach the taxi, and you have no idea what reflective surface(s) redirected the sound before the echo arrived at the taxi. You do have a nice picture with circles on it though. Also, as there was no firearm seen protruding from any window, if Paddock was the shooter, he and the firearm were inside the room. The sound of muzzle blast had to travel out through the hole in the window in a directional manner. No straight path to the taxi was available.
>>How many times did #120 explicitly say { blah blah blah } You might want to rethink the value of quoting yourself to "prove" what someone else said. Doesn't seem to be working very well for you. The Taxi Video applies to The Test for ECHO meme - not to the video/audio being discussed in this thread which asserts that "shooter dressed as police". That "shooter dressed as police" ASSertion is CLEARLY refuted by the audio data. Audio data that I've analysed using the correct forumula - which works just fine without your tweakage. http://ww w.btgresearch.org/AcousticReconstruction02042012.pdf And that IS the same formula I have in my illustration:
Why do you keep posting this chartoon when all your data is not only wrong, but farcical? The only things you proved is that you do not know how to calculate the average velocity of an imaginary bullet and you are hopeless at spreadsheets. Your entertainment value as a useful idiot is over for now, and you will never figure it out without more help. Help is on the way, grasshopper. Columns 1, 2, and 3 are direct entry of data generated by entering imaginary data into a generator at http://www.shooterscalculator.com/. I replicated the data taken from the calculator with “My BB's.” If I input initial velocity as 3240 fps, and other data, and call it “My BB's,” I can show a chart for magical bb’s. http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=34fa8220 The Shooter’s Calculator only provides a result based on user input. It does not present a spreadsheet with the formulas to generate the data. The data from the Calculator can be cut and pasted into a spreadsheet, or entered by direct entry; this produces data in the cells, but no spreadsheet formulas in the cells. The chart states the speed of sound as 1130 feet per second (fps). The remaining 4 columns, (4, 5, 6, 7) were generated by VxH. Column 6 uses 1130.8 fps to calculate the time for sound to travel the distance stated in Column 1. Column 4 is labeled as (Avg V) Vb. This column purports to present the average velocity of the bullet to cover the distance for the row it is in. All of the data in this column is epically wrong as the methodology of calculation is absurdly wrong. To calculate the average velocity of the bullet, divide distance by time. Instead of this, a personal misbegotten formula was used. Probably a pocket calculator for each cell in Column 4 was used to perform the calculations, and the data was directly entered into the cells by hand. For the first two data rows, sum 3240 and 3163 and divide by 2. 6403/2 yields the 3201 in Column 4. For the first three data rows, sum 3240+3163+3088 for 9491. 9491 / 3 yields the 3163.6667 in Column 4. And so on, and so forth. All the calculated Column 4 data (average Vb), is garbage. The chosen methodology was to sum the velocity given for each distance, and divide by the number of elements summed. This produces nonsensical data. Example: You drive a car 100 miles at 80 mph. You drive another 100 miles at 20 mph. With this bogus methodology, 80 + 20 = 100, divide by 2, and your average velocity was 50 mph. Not. In the real world, you drove 100/80 or 1.25 hours at 80 mph. You drove 100/20 or 5 hours at 20 mph. And you drove 200 miles in 6.25 hours. Your average speed was 200/6.25, or 32 mph. Column 4, in addition to using an absurd methodology for its calculations, also incorporates two summing errors for the velocities taken from Column 3, at 900 feet and 1275 ft. In each case, the actual sum was 1 less than that calculated. Spreadsheet formulas are not prone to fat finger syndrome, and do not make such errors, but someone with a pocket calculator or pen and paper does. The data was typed in after external calculation. Where you calculate 2367.5926 average Vb at 1950 feet, 1950/1.211933 (the velocity of the bullet in Column 5), it yields 1608.9998 fps, remarkably close to the 1609 in Column 3. But then, the elapsed time in Column 2 is 0.86, not 1.21933. It is a conundrum how the bullet traveled for 1.21933 seconds in an elapsed time of 0.86 seconds. Of course, when you use Column 1 1950 ft and Column 3 1609 fps to derive the time of flight, the formula is d/Vb, and Vb is the Average Velocity. The bullet will travel 1905 feet distance (Col 1) in 0.86 sec time (Col 2) in 1905/0.86 or 2267.4418 average Vb. Stated in your headnote is Tb is d/Vb. It is noteworthy that you used Column 3 as the "average" velocity of the bullet in order to derive the other average velocity of the bullet in Column 4. Column 5 (Tb) incorporates the garbage data from Column 4 into its calculations, and all the resulting calculated data is wrong. GIGO. Column 7 (T = Tb – Ts) incorporates the garbage data from Column 5 and all the calculated data is wrong. GIGO. The chart is multicolor and pretty, but the data for the imaginary bullet is demonstrably wrong in every column you created, except for column 6 where you succeeded in dividing the distance by 1130.8.
BTW = The Elapsed time between T1 and T2 0.689655 is quite quite sufficient for debunking the title of the video "shooter dressed as police". Even without the ballistic data (which is calculated correctly for the parameters entered) - the difference between the bullet sound event and the report sound event puts the distance of the shooter at least 784 feet. Is the guy "dreesed as police" 784 feet away? NOPE. Video status = DEBUNKED.
Psst. Please tell the class why, using your calculation, at 75 ft, the bullet has ACCELERATED to 3750fps, decerates to 3000fps at 150 seconds... and then accelerates to 3214fps at 225 feet... etc accelerating and decelerating and accelerating. Is it a magic bullet? The time in the chart rendered by the ballistic calculator only has 2 decimals of precision. Calculating the average per the reported velocity is thus more accurate.
Which is only as valid as the improbable or impossible data you entered. As I demonstratred, the same data entered for My BB's produces a chart with the same data for BB's. http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=34fa8220 Come on. Question my analysis of how you made a botch of the Average Bullet Velocity. Give us your methodology and formula. Why were all your calculations wrong except for distance divided by time?
>>Question my analysis of how you made a botch of the Average Bullet Velocity. LOL. OK - please tell the class why the bullet accelerates / decelerates / accelerates repeatedly when your "analysis" is applied? The time in the chart rendered by the ballistic calculator only has 2 decimals of precision. Calculating the average per the reported velocity is thus more accurate.
>> and the data was directly entered into the cells by hand. Bzzzt. Fail again. http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php
- - - - - - - - - - [VxH #149] Please tell the class why, using your calculation, at 75 ft, the bullet has ACCELERATED to 3750fps, decerates to 3000fps at 150 seconds... and then accelerates to 3214fps at 225 feet... etc accelerating and decelerating and accelerating. Is it a magic bullet? [VxH #151] Calculating the average per the reported velocity is thus more accurate. More accurate is to divide the distance by the velocity and get the time to more decimal places and eliminate the rounding error. Your bullshit methodology of summing velocities and dividing does not work. It is bullshit. The stupid... it hurts! The chart results are based on the data you entered. As I demonstratred, the same data entered for My BB's produces a chart with the same data for BB's. If the chart correctly calculated the ballistic data for the parameters you entered, http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=34fa8220 Tell everybody how you derived average velocity. Come on. Question my analysis of how you made a botch of the Average Bullet Velocity. Give us your methodology and formula. Why were all your calculations wrong except for distance divided by time? The data which you input did not come from any real life ammunition, you just entered stuff, as I did for My BB's. I just entered the same stuff you did, proving my bb's have an initial Vel[x+y] of 3240 fps. My BB's perform precisely as do your imaginary cartridge. Are you saying the ballistics chart you used produced invalid results? If the chart results are valid, please tell the class why the chart indicates the bullet traveled 75 ft. in 0.02 seconds and that indicates average velocity d/time of 750/.02 = 3750 fps. It's your data. If the ballistics chart calculated correctly, you should understand the chart you presented, and be able to explain the results given. Do you think you are entitled to just use a nonsense formula which produces nosense results because you do not understand the chart data that you selected and presented? The note at the bottom of the chart indicates: Of course, the time of 0.02 could represent a figure rounded to two decimal places for presentation, and actually represent anything from 0.0150 to 0.0249. 75 feet divided by Vel[x] 3239 75/3239 feet, taken to six decimal places gives 0.0231552 seconds bullet travel time. Hot damn, it's within the rounding error. At Vel[x+y] 3240 feet per second, and 75 feet distance, the time to six decimal places would be 0.0231481 seconds bullet travel time and hot damn, that's within the rounding error too. Thank you, Lord. At my #108 I asked, That question met with resounding crickets. A mystery, wrapped in an enigma, hidden by a conundrum, is why, at 75 feet, the chart indicates Vel(x) = 3239, Vel (y) = 5.70, and Vel[x+y] = 3240. Whatever can that strange arithmetic be? You could have chosen to display Vel[x] or Vel[y], or Vel[x+y]. Why did you choose to display Vel[x+y] rather than say, Vel[x]? What is Vel[x], Vel[y], and Vel[x+y]?
LOL. So you're going to drive 99 miles at 2mph, then drive and 1 mile at 100mph. You're going to divide 100 miles by what 100mph? Here are the values of Nolu- Time calculated with your d/v brainstorm: Ooops! Congratulations! You "fixed" the rounding of 0.86 by transforming it into 1.2119328776 are you sure that works? LOL. I know what they mean on the Ballistic calculator. Don't you? Hint: They're Vectors. And speaking of Vectors: If we treated each 75 ft segment as a vector and then calculated time as a function of the relationship between 75ft and the difference between {Vn..Vn+1}... that might work a little better than your simple d/v idea.
You're going to divide 100 miles by what 100mph? No. You measuring bullets at 75 foot increments. It is the DISTANCE that in the segment and remains the same. That is why your bullshit does not work and your question is bullshit. You stipulate a DISTANCE ratio of 99:1. Nice try. It is not one distance and 99 times that distance. The distances on the chart are in precisely equal steps. By your misbegotten Rube Goldberg "formula," the bullet traveled The correct times, carried to seven decimal places, are, The bullets traveled the precise same distance in different times and velocities. The distance segments are precisely the same; the elapsed time and velocity changes. Over equal distances, your formula is still bullshit. If you drive 99 miles at 99 mph, and 99 miles at 1 mph, 99/99 = 1 hour and 99 miles at 1 mph. 99/1 = 99 hours Your average speed is not 100/2 50 mph. Your average speed is 198m/100h = 1.98 mph. Duhhhh. Hint: They're Vectors. I know. You just found out. You still did not explain why you used Vel[x+y] rather than Vel[x]. Simple d/v is not my idea. You stated the Column 5 formula as Tb = d/Vb. Your bullshit of summing the travel over one 75 foot segment with the travel time over the next 75 foot segment, and making believe that this is the formula to find the bullet average time of travel is still bullshit. You did a nice job of chopping the formulas off the graphic posted above. Chopping them off does not make them go away. They are stated as: d is the target distance.(range) Where is the bullshit formula that has you summing the elapsed times of segments and dividing by the number of segments to get the average velocity? You link to btgresearch and then put your own misbegotten formulas on the page, with your bullshit data, for an imaginary cartridge with imaginary properties tweaked to get the initial velocity you wanted at the time.
Anybody who actually understands the ballistic calculator doesn't need an explanation.
[duplicate]
>>Simple d/v is not my idea. Liar. "more accurate is to divide the distance by the velocity and get the time to more decimal places nolu chan posted on 2017-10-28 18:47:52 ET https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=153#C153 Nolu-Time as d/v = FAIL Which is column has values that closer to the values under Time? Column I: Nolu- Time Column J does.
>>speaking of Vectors...
The problem is that you are clueless and do not know what your are doing and do not know what a vector is. A vector is described by a line, not a point. Here is a correct spreadsheet: As a vector is described by a line and not a point, the Column D velocity at 75 feet describes the average bullet velocity for the segment from 0 to 75 feet, and the velocity at 150 feet describes the average bullet velocity from 0 to 150 feet, and so on. The time for 75 feet indicates the elapsed time for 0 to 75 feet. The time for 150 feet indicates the elapsed time for 0 to 150 feet. Column C, the time, is derived by dividing Column B (distance) by Column D. In your chart it is was rounded off to two decimal places. I took it to four decimal places. Your added Rube Goldberg nonsense was not only wrong but unecessary. Average velocity at the stated distances was staring you in the face. In Columns H thru L, I have provided the data for each 75-foot segment. At 1575 feet, the bullet opens its largest gap on sound at 0.05502 seconds. From 1575 to 1650 feet, the bullet travels at an average velocity of 1127.9144 fps, dipping below the speed of sound. After that, sound is traveling faster than the bullet and the gap diminishes.
Comments (161 - 186) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Regarding my initial meme "TEST FOR ECHO" -- Balistic data is NOT required to determine the total distance sound traveling from, and echoing back to, the ORIGIN point which is essentially where the Taxi driver was.
Yeah, you make believe that the sounds recorded in the taxi can yield an accurate measurement of distance.
A microphone was placed a few centimeters from the muzzle to record both the muzzle blast and the sound of the bullet hitting the deer. The time recorded between the muzzle blast and bullet striking the target represents the sum of the bullet time of flight (tb) and the time for the sound to return to the microphone from the target (ts),
These results show that it is possible to use an audio recording of a shooting event to accurately determine the distance between the target and the shooter. In cases where the location of the microphone is different, the mathematical details are different, but the ideas are the same.
A significant weakness in the study is the placement of the microphone near the muzzle of the gun, an unlikely location in most forensic cases....
#121. To: VxH (#117)
The ECHO observed and discussed in the "TEST FOR ECHO" meme is not the sound of bullet impact - it is the reflected report.
#122. To: nolu chan (#120)
(Edited)
It was 338+ feet away.
#123. To: nolu chan (#121)
(Edited)
he report of what, reflected from what surface?
#124. To: VxH (#123)
[VxH #117] The ECHO observed and discussed in the "TEST FOR ECHO" meme is not the sound of bullet impact - it is the reflected report.
#125. To: VxH (#122)
Which is irrelevant for the purpose of measuring the elapsed time between the initial Report sound event and the corresponding Echo event at the same location
#126. To: nolu chan (#124)
(Edited)
The report of what, reflected from what surface?
#127. To: nolu chan (#125)
(Edited)
the conditions of the study which
#128. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#119)
What would the Elapsed time between the Last Report sound event and the Last Bullet sound event be....
#129. To: nolu chan (#128)
(Edited)
ust what do you think happens in negative 0.6126 seconds?
#130. To: nolu chan (#128)
(Edited)
your spreadsheet never defines what T is supposed to represent.
#131. To: nolu chan (#128)
(Edited)
#132. To: A K A Stone, tooconservative (#131)
#133. To: VxH (#132)
#134. To: VxH (#129)
The difference in time, 0.6126, is an ABSOLUTE value. Sign is irrelevant.
#135. To: VxH (#131)
You're not even reading from the relevant part of the paper - where the microphone adjacent to the victim scenario is discussed.
#136. To: nolu chan (#135)
(Edited)
t = ts + tb = d/Vs + d/Vb
#137. To: Tooconservative (#133)
I think everyone wants to grab the mantle of science for themselves and deride each other as kooks. Which may be mostly true.
"... finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
#138. To: VxH (#137)
#139. To: Tooconservative (#138)
I've always thought it likely that Jefferson's first objection to modern American government would be to the monument they built in his memory.
#140. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#138)
(Edited)
#141. To: VxH (#140)
So the claim of the video subject of this thread, that "shooter dressed as police" - is DEBUNKED.
#142. To: Tooconservative (#141)
I never grasped why they thought there was any factual basis for this claim to begin with.
#143. To: VxH (#142)
Bring me . . . a Kookery!
#144. To: Tooconservative (#143)
They start jonesing for a kookery within a few hours of any major tragedy
#145. To: VxH (#136)
LOL
#120. To: VxH (#116)
Regarding my initial meme "TEST FOR ECHO" -- Balistic data is NOT required to determine the total distance sound traveling from, and echoing back to, the ORIGIN point which is essentially where the Taxi driver was.
Yeah, you make believe that the sounds recorded in the taxi can yield an accurate measurement of distance.
A microphone was placed a few centimeters from the muzzle to record both the muzzle blast and the sound of the bullet hitting the deer. The time recorded between the muzzle blast and bullet striking the target represents the sum of the bullet time of flight (tb) and the time for the sound to return to the microphone from the target (ts),
These results show that it is possible to use an audio recording of a shooting event to accurately determine the distance between the target and the shooter. In cases where the location of the microphone is different, the mathematical details are different, but the ideas are the same.
A significant weakness in the study is the placement of the microphone near the muzzle of the gun, an unlikely location in most forensic cases....
#146. To: nolu chan (#145)
(Edited)
#147. To: VxH (#146)
#148. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#147)
#149. To: nolu chan (#147)
(Edited)
To calculate the average velocity of the bullet, divide distance by time.
#150. To: VxH (#148)
Even without the ballistic data (which is calculated correctly for the parameters entered)
#151. To: nolu chan (#150)
(Edited)
#152. To: nolu chan (#147)
(Edited)
Drag Function: G1
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.300
Bullet Weight: 62 gr
Initial Velocity: 3240 fps
Sight Height : 1.5 in
Shooting Angle: -33°Wind Speed: 0 mph
Wind Angle: 0°
Zero Range: 100 yd
Chart Range: 750 yd
Maximum Range: 50002 yd
Step Size: 25 ydCorrected For Atmosphere
Adjusted BC: 0.33
Altitude: 2000 ft
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg
Temperature: 72° F
Relative Humidity: 21%
Speed of Sound: 1130 fpsRange Time Vel[x+y] (ft) (s) (ft/s) 0 0.00 3240 75 0.02 3163 150 0.05 3088 225 0.07 3014 300 0.10 2941 375 0.12 2870 450 0.15 2799 525 0.18 2730 600 0.20 2662 675 0.23 2595 750 0.26 2529 825 0.29 2465 900 0.32 2401 975 0.36 2337 1050 0.39 2275 1125 0.42 2214 1200 0.46 2154 1275 0.49 2095 1350 0.53 2036 1425 0.56 1979 1500 0.60 1923 1575 0.64 1867 1650 0.68 1813 1725 0.73 1760 1800 0.77 1708 1875 0.81 1658 1950 0.86 1609 2025 0.91 1561 2100 0.96 1515 2175 1.01 1470 2250 1.06 1426 
#153. To: VxH (#151)
[Vxh #148] Even without the ballistic data (which is calculated correctly for the parameters entered)
Keep in mind this is an approximation....
As for column 3, "Vel[x+y] (ft/s)", you seem to have forgotten to give any definition of x or y on your chart.
#154. To: nolu chan (#153)
(Edited)
divide the distance by the velocity and get the time to more decimal places and eliminate the rounding error.
"Vel[x+y] (ft/s)", you seem to have forgotten to give any definition of x or y on your chart.
#155. To: VxH (#154)
So you're going to drive 99 miles at 2mph, then drive and 1 mile at 100mph.
0.023427s after 75 feet
0.047413s after 150 feet.
0.0237116s - 075 ft [d/Vb]
0.0485751s - 150 ft [d/Vb] LOL. I know what they mean on the Ballistic calculator. Don't you?
And speaking of Vectors: If we treated each 75 ft segment as a vector and then calculated time as a function of the relationship between 75ft and the difference between {Vn..Vn+1}... that might work a little better than your simple d/v idea.
Vs is the velocity of sound, and
Vb is the average bullet velocity over the distance
Tb is d / Vb (time to cover distance @ Vb)
Ts is d/Vs (time to cover distance @Vs)
#156. To: nolu chan (#155)
You still did not explain why you used Vel[x+y] rather than Vel[x].
#157. To: nolu chan (#155)
(Edited)
#158. To: nolu chan (#155)
(Edited)
Column J: d/Avg V
Why is that?
#159. To: All (#154)
#160. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#159)
speaking of Vectors...
BALLISTICS DATA SPREADSHEET
A1 AVERAGE VELOCITY AND TIME DIFF OVER TOTAL DISTANCE AVERAGE VELOCITY FOR EACH 75 FEET SEGMENT 2 3 B C D E F G H I J K L 4 d Time (avg) Vel[x+y] Ts=d/Vs T=Tb - Ts Tb 75 ft Avg Velocity for Segment Segment Segment 5 (ft) d/Vel[x+y] (ft/s) d/Vs ABS(Tb-Ts) +C7-C6 75 foot segment distance begin end 6 0 0.0000 3240 +75/H4 +B7-B6 +K7+75 A7 7 75 0.0237 3163 0.0664 0.0427 0.0237 3163.0000 75 0 75 8 150 0.0486 3088 0.1327 0.0842 0.0249 3016.4744 75 75 150 9 225 0.0747 3014 0.1991 0.1245 0.0261 2876.1533 75 150 225 10 300 0.1020 2941 0.2655 0.1635 0.0274 2741.7798 75 225 300 11 375 0.1307 2870 0.3319 0.2012 0.0287 2617.2620 75 300 375 12 450 0.1608 2799 0.3982 0.2375 0.0301 2490.8930 75 375 450 13 525 0.1923 2730 0.4646 0.2723 0.0315 2378.2353 75 450 525 14 600 0.2254 2662 0.5310 0.3056 0.0331 2266.7686 75 525 600 15 675 0.2601 2595 0.5973 0.3372 0.0347 2160.0657 75 600 675 16 750 0.2966 2529 0.6637 0.3672 0.0364 2057.9351 75 675 750 17 825 0.3347 2465 0.7301 0.3954 0.0381 1967.1773 75 750 825 18 900 0.3750 2400 0.7965 0.4215 0.0403 1860.3774 75 825 900 19 975 0.4172 2337 0.8628 0.4456 0.0422 1777.1863 75 900 975 20 1050 0.4615 2275 0.9292 0.4677 0.0443 1691.5924 75 975 1050 21 1125 0.5081 2214 0.9956 0.4874 0.0466 1609.7315 75 1050 1125 22 1200 0.5571 2154 1.0619 0.5048 0.0490 1531.4566 75 1125 1200 23 1275 0.6089 2094 1.1283 0.5194 0.0518 1448.4509 75 1200 1275 24 1350 0.6631 2036 1.1947 0.5316 0.0542 1384.2156 75 1275 1350 25 1425 0.7201 1979 1.2611 0.5410 0.0570 1315.8863 75 1350 1425 26 1500 0.7800 1923 1.3274 0.5474 0.0600 1250.6135 75 1425 1500 27 1575 0.8436 1867 1.3938 0.5502 0.0636 1179.8360 75 1500 1575 28 1650 0.9101 1813 1.4602 0.5501 0.0665 1127.9144 75 1575 1650 29 1725 0.9801 1760 1.5265 0.5464 0.0700 1071.1245 75 1650 1725 30 1800 1.0539 1708 1.5929 0.5391 0.0738 1016.9418 75 1725 1800 31 1875 1.1309 1658 1.6593 0.5284 0.0770 973.8184 75 1800 1875 32 1950 1.2119 1609 1.7257 0.5137 0.0811 925.3285 75 1875 1950 33 2025 1.2972 1561 1.7920 0.4948 0.0853 879.1211 75 1950 2025 34 2100 1.3861 1515 1.8584 0.4723 0.0889 843.7085 75 2025 2100 35 2175 1.4796 1470 1.9248 0.4452 0.0935 802.5405 75 2100 2175 36 2250 1.5778 1426 1.9912 0.4133 0.0982 763.3722 75 2175 2250 37 38 Total 39 1.5780 40 SUM G7:G36
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]