Have you watched this in full? It's utter horseshit.
A: it was almost definitely a .30 cal - I recall seeing photos emerge of the LMG used, but will need to look for them to confirm.
B: The video provides absolutely no audio samples to compare with what he's written on the whiteboard. Granted, the whiteboard has SOME factual info, but, it also just acts as a pointing reference and conversation piece for him.
C: We already heard him at the start, "forensic acoustic analysis", why does he feel the need to constantly repeat this? (Neuro Linguistic Programming - repeat something enough times and the reader/listener will begin to accept it as fact)
D: He's making out as if he knows exactly what gun was used and exactly what grain(density/weight) the bullets were - any change of weapon(some guns afford better muzzle velocity than others which fire the same ammo) or bullet grain will throw his theory out the window.
E: This dude looks like a jarhead/cia grunt.
F: More NLP, he constantly demands that you agree with him as part of his collective "we", all the while trying to point you to his whiteboard because it's scribbles, math and graphs make it seem as though he's speaking from a place of authority on the subject.
view the rest of the comments →
carmencita ago
Please Come @bopper @argosciv @Commoner @Dressage2 @ESOTERICshade
argosciv ago
Have you watched this in full? It's utter horseshit.
A: it was almost definitely a .30 cal - I recall seeing photos emerge of the LMG used, but will need to look for them to confirm.
B: The video provides absolutely no audio samples to compare with what he's written on the whiteboard. Granted, the whiteboard has SOME factual info, but, it also just acts as a pointing reference and conversation piece for him.
C: We already heard him at the start, "forensic acoustic analysis", why does he feel the need to constantly repeat this? (Neuro Linguistic Programming - repeat something enough times and the reader/listener will begin to accept it as fact)
D: He's making out as if he knows exactly what gun was used and exactly what grain(density/weight) the bullets were - any change of weapon(some guns afford better muzzle velocity than others which fire the same ammo) or bullet grain will throw his theory out the window.
E: This dude looks like a jarhead/cia grunt.
F: More NLP, he constantly demands that you agree with him as part of his collective "we", all the while trying to point you to his whiteboard because it's scribbles, math and graphs make it seem as though he's speaking from a place of authority on the subject.
Absolute shit.
JimmyLionstar1 ago
This analysis proves shootings happening in different locations.
This is math, and it is something you can´t easily dismiss. Thats why its so compelling evidence.