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: 56846
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 (1-46) not displayed.
.
.
.
#47. To: Tooconservative (#45)
(Edited)
There is a video (somewhere in the haystack now) that has audio of what sounds like several single hp rifle cracks at the start of the shooting - presumably at the fuel tanks.
lol.
Laugh all you want. If we have tons of contradictory YouTube videos based on this taxi driver video (and none of them prepared from the original video), then most of them must be wrong or scammers trying to draw clicks. The best you can say is that the ones you are posting are somehow better than the others. And you can't offer any evidence that they were not faked or that they were prepared using authentic undoctored footage. You're reaching into the YouTube jar and trying to draw out a winner almost at random, mostly based on how clickbaitish their titles are. Maybe there are no winners in the YouTube raffle; maybe all it has are the consolation prizes for dummies.
If we have tons of contradictory YouTube videos The taxi video was there right from the start. You think she was in on it?
You want me to prove a negative? You can't prove they are fake. Someone on the internet will if they are fake. The taxi video has been there right from the start. The video chan posted lines up with it. They are not fake and you know it.
Right where? Where are you saying she posted the original video? Where is it? Either you can point me to it or you're just making crap up because you want to believe it or you just don't want to admit to being taken in like a rube with inauthentic video footage. Among the earliest postings of it seems to be video distributed by Las Vegas Journal-Review. I think the taxi driver sold it to them but I can't confirm that. However, LVJR did not initially distribute the entire video but offered cut-down versions that were edited. We have no idea whether we have ever seen the original video as she recorded it. We don't even know what brand and model her phone was or what resolution the video was.
I know no such thing. And neither do you. And you're just blustering now because you finally realize you've been had by these YouTube scammers like the Niburu/Planet X cultists.
This was the earliest version I saw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNiRr763gJA&t=3s Unfortunately no longer available.
Youtube is just a tool. How reliable or useful it is for discerning the truth is relative to the integrity of the individuals and organizations using it. Certainly not any less reliable than the arrogant, self- serving, propaganda-parrots perched atop their "Newseum"
That video was posted by BlazingPress.com, a generic rightwing/Christian site. They posted it originally on Tuesday, 10/3/17. You can see a better version of the page (not the video) at Archive.org. That is the same page archived on 10/4. Very very unlikely that is the original video. LVNR posted their copy on 10/4 or 10/3, can't recall which. It could be that these all came from a local network news affiliate who bought it off the taxi driver and then everyone just captured it and published it as their own content. Certainly, that is what Blazing Press did. This all underlines my previous point: we don't know which of these videos are the original or if there is an original reliable copy of the taxi driver's video. I'm starting to doubt that there is. Maybe the Klingons and Lutherans have silenced our intrepid taxi driver, threatening to take away her spicy tacos.
Yep. I'm not convinced it was tacos. Burritos are an equally plausible source of flatulent reverberation in Las Vegas.
Cori Langdon October 3 at 8:58pm Here is my video. It has been edited per the request of the passengers to bleep out their names and end the video before their faces are seen. No other editing has been done. Looks as clear as the vids I upload to FB from my phone.
Here is my video. It has been edited per the request of the passengers to bleep out their names and end the video before their faces are seen. No other editing has been done. That doesn't mean that Fakebook didn't recompress it. She didn't offer the original footage at all. When you upload to Fakebook or YouBoob, they create their own versions in various resolutions as I detailed in another post. When YouBoob first started to offer HD videos, they did offer the actual original footage exactly as uploaded. They discontinued that some time back and now re-encode everything. I think Facebook does the same thing. If the media and all the YouBoobers just grabbed her Facebook video, then it is possible, likely even, that no one has had an actual first-gen copy of her video.
Right - but it's probably as close to the "original" source as we're going to get. Yep.
I was hiking in the mountains and I yelled, "Hello". Right after that I heard four other people yell 'hello', one after the other. And here I thought I was alone.
Notice the windows are completely missing. The shooter's windows were jagged.
Enter Screen How was I had when I changed their title which was 100 percent proof to "video says"? You still were unable to disprove the images and you dodged it like a little girly man. I think they were police officers who turned around and pointed their guns. But what was the flash? None of you two pussies dared to refute it. Girlymen.
Shouldn't you be hiding in your bunker so Planet X doesn't hit you in the head?
I'm always in my bunker here on Q'onoS. Chancellor Gowron wouldn't have it any other way.
Regardless of your lame humor. You still haven't told me why those two guys in police uniforms look like they turn around and fire on the crowd. I'm not saying that is what they are doing and never said that. I just wondered if anyone smarter then me (not you TC, don't make me laugh, i'm thinking of others) knew what was going on in that section of the video. It is above your pay grade so don't worry about it. Maybe someone else knows since you don't.
I can't help you. I don't watch kook videos.
I know you can't help me. I'm not looking for someone who likes to remain ignorant and boast about their ignorance. The video was uploaded by a person who was really there, unlike you who weren't.
No, it was uploaded by known kooks who probably manipulated it. And you.
So they were there? You are misinformed. Which usually isn't the case.
Then I calculated the difference in time between the last bullet sound (T1) and the corresponding last report sound (T2). Your arithmetic is fine, your logic is a FAIL. You failed to answer the question: "Why does that measure the distance from the video taker to the shooter?" You have still not identified what sounds you refer to. What is the first sound of a bullet? The initial sound wave as heard at the recording location? What is the last sound of the bullet? An echo? Another bullet? In this case, the video taker was 400 yards away from the shooter. The sound wave originated at position a and traveled 400 yards to get to the videotaker at position b. That took ~1.07 seconds for the sound to travel. If you measure the first sound of the bullet as when it traveled faster than sound, and then struck something or whizzed past making a sound, your ~1.07 second measurement is impossible as the elapsed time difference would be the time it took the sound wave to travel (~1.07s) minus the time it took the bullet to travel. Your calculation as the bullet traveling at aproximately the speed of light. The bullet and the sound both travel the same path at the same time, at different velocities. As the sound takes ~1.07 seconds, the difference in their arrival times cannot be ~1.07s. Two cars travel an 80 mile strip. One travels 80 mph and crosses the finish line in 1 hour. The other travels 40 miles an hour and crosses the finish line in 2 hours. If the slow car went half the speed of the faster car, and the time difference was 1 hour, the distance can be calculated as the velocity of the faster vehicle (80 mph) divided by the velocity of the slower vehicle (40 mph) time the time difference (1 hour). Your calculation is good arithmetic but gibberish logic. ~1.07 seconds is simply the time for sound to travel from Mandalay Bay to the target recording location. An echo of a sound originating at position a results from the sound wave traveling the distance originating point a to recording position b, proceeding an unidentified distance to the reflective surface c, and returning to position b. The sound must arrive/leave recording position b at ~1.07 seconds, travel to a reflective surface, and return. The elapsed time must exceed 1.07s. In measuring the distance of a lightning bolt, you can use the sighting of the lightning bolt, the light traveling at the speed of light, as the originating time of the initiating event. You can count until the slower moving sound wave arrives, and calculate distance to the lightning. This is because the velocity of light is so great, its travel time over relatively short distances is negligible. Unfortunately, even with a Boy Scout merit badge, an audio recording from 400 yards away does not identify distance of the originating event. Bullets do not travel at the speed of light, or anywhere near it. The way you know the distance from the Mandalay Bay to the event location is by measuring it.
How do you know that that is the original video? I haven't found an original source of it. The Mandalay Bay is a public location that is clearly documented by, among others, Google. For the geography of the location, it does not appear necessary to present a half-dozen sources to verify that the building is situated as it is, where it is. There is nothing controversial about the layout of the land. I have yet to see any depiction of Mandalay Bay without an entrance and a taxi stand, but if you know of one, please present it.
Need to update that to incorporate the muzzle velocity.... Ok, so I was on the right track. I found this research paper: [Using Sound of Target Impact for Acoustic Reconstructions of Shooting Events] http://www.btgresearch.org /impactsound.pdf "For example, if the microphone is adjacent to the victim (such as a 911 recording might be), the equation for determining the distance becomes: t=tb - ts= d/Vb-d/Vs If the muzzle blast duration obscures the sound of the bullet hitting the target, simple inspection of the sound waveform is insufficient. " I took their formula, built a spreadsheet, and plugged in 223 balistic data generated via shooterscalculator.com: Important to note: * Presently we don't have information regarding specificaly which weapons and amunition were used. So the ballistic data was generated with a guestimate 223 configuration. * My DAW (Sonar) doesn't appear to have the capability of capturing a sound spectrogram like the ones the authors of the study produced; but after reading their commentary on the blast noise obscuring impact noise, I filtered the crowd noise, and filtered/looked alternately for the report and then the high energy impact sounds - and I revised T1 and T2 accordingly. More accurate results could possibly be obtained if the corresponding burst sequence on the Taxi-Driver video is identified and aligned, as the taxi-driver's audio contains only the muzzle blast and echo. It doesn't have the crowd and impact noise to obscure the muzzle events.
You didn't read this... https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=46#C46 ...before that screed did you. :-p
You're wrong. He is adjusting for the speed of sound on the night in LV. The speed of sound is 1100 feet/minute as a decent estimate anywhere (1,087 ft/s more accurately) but he is correcting for altitude and weather conditions. This has nothing to do with speed of light since the muzzle flashes weren't visible from the concert area in any video I've seen. If the GPS position is being continuously recorded or if the people recording at the concert (hundreds or thousands) were recording video, you can readily determine their position and distance from the shooter pretty easily, just based on the time at which the sound of gunshots arrive, knowing the distance of their source. They can only be described as a portion of an arc, bounded by the concert area rectangle, that constitutes a circle around the shooter's location in the hotel. That's a pretty sound way to determine a fixed location. This is true of all these A/V recordings of the event. You can determine very accurately their location from the video and the audio timing, even more so if a bullet flies past their camera. VxH does have a sound method for analysis but only if he can gather enough A/V recordings from the concert and anywhere else, like the taxi driver. I am curious that we have seen no reporting that police requested the concert goers to upload their videos from that night. Maybe the sheriff and the FBI have really dropped the ball on this. Usually, the FBI is pretty sharp on audio lab stuff.
Grossly uninformed again.
Does your image represent your Klingon teleportion theory?
Where is Mr. Alien Conspiracy.. err I mean Mr. HealthGuy's DATA? Also, is he misinterpreting the supper-sonic cracks of bullets passing by as "pavement hits"? - probably.
I don't believe this crackpot's lamebrain hypothesis. He is claiming verifiable acoustic signature analysis based on somebody's cell phone audio capture that is not controlled in anyway. BULLSHIT.
He is absolutely wrong and just bullshitting again. Your observations are irrelevant to his claim being accurate. His claim is 100% impossible. At #42, Vxh compares two times from the Taxi Driver video: ["Taxi Driver Video" the Zapruder Film of the Las Vegas shooting UNCUT / UNEDITED] https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=mBbOFwWquAw&feature=youtu.be&t=1m7s and https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=mBbOFwWquAw&feature=youtu.be&t=1m24s At #43, citing #42, he claims a total distance of 1208.80 feet. He is measuring distance of sound, not light/bullet speed or travel distance to a target. If, as claimed, the total distance for the sound is 1,208.80 feet, that includes the echo time according to his own graphic in the same post. His graphic indicates that the total distance is twice the echo distance, or the echo distance (presumably unobstructed) is half the total distance. He adjusted the distance by 100%. This purports to be from the taxi video. The sound of the gunshot was recorded almost immediately. The recorded returning sound is from an unknown reflecting distance. If the reflecting surface was plucked from his butt to be the bandstand, the sound would have traveled 1208 feet to the bandstand, and 1208 feet back to the taxi, if the path back at ground level were unobstructed. You cannot adjust to a 1,208 foot total distance, unless the sound turned around and came back unobstructed at 604 feet. Unless the sound somehow returned at the speed of light, instead of the speed of sound, the total distance must be double the 1,280 feet that he claimed. He is again incapable of describing the data on his own graphic. Of course, the sound could have bounced off something 640 feet away and come back to the taxi. The Reflecting surface is unknown. What sound cannot do is zing into something 1,280 feet away, and come back from that point, and travel a total distance of 1,280 feet.
You're putting your words in his mouth. Nice straw man you've got there.
SMH. Attention to detail isn't your forte. Neither 1280 nor 1208 are on the graphic What does this mean?
Even if the audio capture hasn't been altered there are still parameters required to make the ballistic calculations to "prove" his conclusion of a second shooter. http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi Nobody knows what weapon or ammunition was used - so any attempt to fill in those parameters is, at best, only a guess.
As I can do simple calculation, unlike you, I need no additional source to discover the bullshit. Sound cannot travel 1280 feet to a target and come back to the taxi, and travel a total distance of 1280 feet. Not even a super genius can make sound do that. But that is what you claimed, that the sound traveled a total distance of 1280 feet, based solely on the taxi driver recording.
It means that total distance the time traveled is two times the echo travel distance. T1 on the taxi recording is almost instantaneous after the shot, a very short travel distance. Then the sound traveled 1208 feet to the target area, and at least 1208 feet back (unobstructed). Do arithmetic much? The total distance will be double the distance if unobstructed and reflected by something at the target area straight back to the taxi. If the sound travels another mile and gets reflected back from a distant building, it would take even longer.
No, it means the number "1208" (and 1280) isn't referenced by that graphic because the audio data on that graphic pertains to a completely different discussion of a completely different audio data set.
Comments (88 - 186) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAt some point fairly early in the attack, he must have shot at the aviation fuel tanks.
#48. To: Tooconservative (#44)
Unless it is fake.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)
#50. To: Tooconservative (#49)
Laugh all you want.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#49)
And you can't offer any evidence that they were not faked
#52. To: A K A Stone (#50)
The taxi video was there right from the start.
#53. To: A K A Stone (#51)
(Edited)
They are not fake and you know it.
#54. To: Tooconservative (#52)
We have no idea whether we have ever seen the original video as she recorded it.
#55. To: nolu chan (#41)
Youtube may be useful or entertaining. As proof of things, it is unreliable.
#56. To: VxH (#54)
(Edited)
#57. To: Tooconservative (#56)
Very very unlikely that is the original video.
Maybe the Klingons and Lutherans have silenced our intrepid taxi driver, threatening to take away her spicy tacos.
#58. To: Tooconservative (#56)
(Edited)
#59. To: VxH (#58)
Cori Langdon October 3 at 8:58pm
#60. To: Tooconservative (#59)
That doesn't mean that Fakebook didn't recompress it.
If the media and all the YouBoobers just grabbed her Facebook video, then it is possible, likely even, that no one has had an actual first-gen copy of her video
#61. To: nolu chan (#40)
#62. To: Tooconservative (#30)
That three-missing-windows video is total crap. It could easily be faked.
#63. To: Tooconservative (#53)
And you're just blustering now because you finally realize you've been had by these YouTube scammers like the Niburu/Planet X cultists.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#65. To: Tooconservative (#64)
#66. To: Tooconservative (#64)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#66)
I'm not saying that is what they are doing and never said that. I just wondered if anyone smarter then me (not you TC, don't make me laugh, i'm thinking of others) knew what was going on in that section of the video.
#68. To: Tooconservative (#67)
(Edited)
I can't help you. I don't watch kook videos.
#69. To: A K A Stone (#68)
The video was uploaded by a person who was really there, unlike you who weren't.
#70. To: Tooconservative (#69)
No, it was uploaded by known kooks who probably manipulated it. And you.
#71. To: VxH (#43)
I used the same speed I used in my other analysis (appended below) - based upon an air temperature of 72 degrees
#72. To: Tooconservative (#44)
Unless it is fake.
#73. To: Tooconservative, nolu chan, aka stone (#46)
(Edited)
I'm making an error by treating the T1 as the firing time.
#74. To: nolu chan (#71)
(Edited)
{ blah blah blah }
#75. To: nolu chan, VxH (#71)
Unfortunately, even with a Boy Scout merit badge, an audio recording from 400 yards away does not identify distance of the originating event. Bullets do not travel at the speed of light, or anywhere near it.
#76. To: Tooconservative (#75)
we have seen no reporting that police requested the concert goers to upload their videos from that night
#77. To: VxH, nolu chan, buckeroo (#1)
#78. To: VxH (#42)
#79. To: A K A Stone (#77)
#80. To: A K A Stone (#77)
#81. To: Tooconservative, VxH (#75)
You're wrong. He is adjusting for the speed of sound on the night in LV. The speed of sound is 1100 feet/minute as a decent estimate anywhere (1,087 ft/s more accurately) but he is correcting for altitude and weather conditions. This has nothing to do with speed of light since the muzzle flashes weren't visible from the concert area in any video I've seen.
An analysis of two sequential burts of gunfire between:
#82. To: nolu chan (#81)
(Edited)
#83. To: nolu chan (#81)
(Edited)
What sound cannot do is zing into something 1,280 feet away,
#84. To: buckeroo (#80)
(Edited)
He is claiming verifiable acoustic signature analysis based on somebody's cell phone audio capture that is not controlled in anyway.
#85. To: VxH (#74)
You didn't read this...
#86. To: VxH (#83)
What does this mean?
#87. To: nolu chan (#86)
(Edited)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]