Not strictly true. The lag time he described varies depending on the muzzle velocity. So, although I am not a rifle expert, I can make an educated guess that a different rifle or different caliber bullet could produce the shorter lag times.
Someone sent this video to me and there is not sufficient evidence, so I decided to find it on voat and discuss it.
The analysis of his videos are on what he calls the "lag time" between the bullet striking and report. A faster bullet travels farther ahead of the firing sound wave than a slower bullet.
His two times are .374, and .560, which is a 50% increase from low to high. We know that there was an ak also being used besides the ARs.
So a heavy 150 grn factory ak round (given a standard length barrel) would be going about 2100fps. A standard AR would be about 3150. It just so happens that that is exactly 50% faster, which would lead to a "lag time" difference of about 50% shooting from the exact same position.
It's clearly a different gun being fired from the same position. The only conclusive evidence would be audio of both guns being fired simultaneously, which was not provided or mentioned in the video.
I understand that you are steadfast in your confidence about what the video proves, however, take (another) moment to consider what was actually presented. He does mention that soldiers can guess at the proximity of a shooter by listening to the frequency of a shot, but he never measures the sound frequency as part of his analysis. He measures the lag time between two separate sounds. No matter if he wanted to address either or both sounds, there are two many unknowns for him to say anything about the attenuation of the sound and recorded frequency. You might be able to reliably say that it was fairly close or there may be another type of analysis I am not aware of, but, I repeat, that is not what he chose to analyze. Only as a way to describe the nature of the two sounds does he mention that the first noise (that he takes to be bullet impacts) is in the high frequency spectrum and the second noise (of the rifle report) is in the low frequency spectrum.
As other commenter have said, he may well being using NLP and other techniques to confuse people, so we may need to be careful about this guy until a better analysis can be done. He claims he whipped us this "forensic evidence" in three hours, but he was likely irresponsible by releasing a video like this since he acknowledges that many videos are being banned for being inaccurate and he thinks he knows enough to give law enforcement consultation. He claims to be a scientist, but there seem to be some errors in his approach. He tries to make it seem like he was exhaustive in eliminating error, e.g. he notes that echo wouldn't change his analysis. That isn't to say that you can't prove that either two rifles or two shooters were present, but we don't know that he isolates two distinct sound sources reliably (with an observable, cohesive pattern).
Do you understand that lag time is not a measure of the difference in sound frequency of two sounds but the delay (seconds passed) between two sounds? He did not measure the difference in frequency between the two sounds, and we don't know how that could be useful unless you want to come up with a new type of analysis. There may be some complex analysis out there, but we are only concerned with the analysis that he did. Please look up what he means by lag time. Muzzle velocity, air resistance, tumble, caliber, and trajectory all matter when you are interpreting lag time.
Fine, but everyone is telling you that you are missing something, and you need to be more careful because I've seen some valid points in response to your stance. Yes, one part of the difference formula involves the speed of sound. The other part involves the speed of the bullet. You don't get any distance just by knowing the speed of sound and when one sound, the rifle report, reaches you. This remains true even if you have a single measure of frequency (of the sound of the rifle report when it reaches you).
I agree that the speed of the bullet will have an impact on where the second shooter is. But the sounds are recorded from the same place (arena), so even if the caliber change the velocity would not change that much. Meaning the "lag time" and the calculation he did with a .223 showed a change in frequency to closer range at more then 200 yards closer to the arena.
So even if you change the caliber it still would not make sense that is was just one shooter.
First, we can't really trust his analysis until it's repeated by someone. So, although it's possible to isolate distinct sound sources of shooters, we don't know if it was done without error. Second, you are making assumptions. For example, caliber matters so much that if a second shooter was at 275 yards, he could have chosen to fire subsonic rounds. He could reliably hit the crowd and the sound would arrive before the impacts. Are you just going to assume that whatever rounds and rifles were used were just "pretty much standard"? We have to see how this guy eliminated such errors. So even if the data is showing an unmistakable pattern, we need to make sure there aren't alternative explanations that also fit. A more rigorous analysis could give us the proof we are looking for. For now, I'll just say that if this guy didn't completely (although he did partially) fudge the results, he might have found something in the data that can't be easily explained by a single shooter.
Just watched this video elsewhere and came here to comment, and I see your discussion with the enthusiastic, but less than informed OP. This is clearly just the AK being fired at around 2100 fps as opposed to the AR at 3150. 50% increase in bullet speed means ~50% increase in "lag time" (although slightly less as the heavier ak rounds lose velocity less quickly).
The only conclusive evidence would be a recording showing the two rifles firing at the same time in such a way as the shooter could not possibly be switching between rifles. He did not provide this evidence.
view the rest of the comments →
tcp ago
Paddock was dual fisting with a second higher caliber rifle. Duh.
JimmyLionstar1 ago
Well then he did it from different locations :)
Because this is what this video proves, that there is a shooter closer to the arena.
tcp ago
Not strictly true. The lag time he described varies depending on the muzzle velocity. So, although I am not a rifle expert, I can make an educated guess that a different rifle or different caliber bullet could produce the shorter lag times.
JimmyLionstar1 ago
This video analysis has to do with frequency and how frequency transmission through the medium of air.
Thats why this is compelling evidence of a second shooter much closer to the arena. No mather the caliber
This is math and physics and it is not something you can easily dismiss.
riposte ago
Someone sent this video to me and there is not sufficient evidence, so I decided to find it on voat and discuss it.
The analysis of his videos are on what he calls the "lag time" between the bullet striking and report. A faster bullet travels farther ahead of the firing sound wave than a slower bullet.
His two times are .374, and .560, which is a 50% increase from low to high. We know that there was an ak also being used besides the ARs.
So a heavy 150 grn factory ak round (given a standard length barrel) would be going about 2100fps. A standard AR would be about 3150. It just so happens that that is exactly 50% faster, which would lead to a "lag time" difference of about 50% shooting from the exact same position.
It's clearly a different gun being fired from the same position. The only conclusive evidence would be audio of both guns being fired simultaneously, which was not provided or mentioned in the video.
tcp ago
Wrong. You should look up the math and physics involved in the calculations.
JimmyLionstar1 ago
It´s the high frequency sound that give a way the sound of the bullet hit the ground.
And the low frequency sound proves that its sound of the fire from the gun/rifle.
The difference has to do with transmission of frequency in the medium of air.
I do know what i am talking about.
tcp ago
I understand that you are steadfast in your confidence about what the video proves, however, take (another) moment to consider what was actually presented. He does mention that soldiers can guess at the proximity of a shooter by listening to the frequency of a shot, but he never measures the sound frequency as part of his analysis. He measures the lag time between two separate sounds. No matter if he wanted to address either or both sounds, there are two many unknowns for him to say anything about the attenuation of the sound and recorded frequency. You might be able to reliably say that it was fairly close or there may be another type of analysis I am not aware of, but, I repeat, that is not what he chose to analyze. Only as a way to describe the nature of the two sounds does he mention that the first noise (that he takes to be bullet impacts) is in the high frequency spectrum and the second noise (of the rifle report) is in the low frequency spectrum.
As other commenter have said, he may well being using NLP and other techniques to confuse people, so we may need to be careful about this guy until a better analysis can be done. He claims he whipped us this "forensic evidence" in three hours, but he was likely irresponsible by releasing a video like this since he acknowledges that many videos are being banned for being inaccurate and he thinks he knows enough to give law enforcement consultation. He claims to be a scientist, but there seem to be some errors in his approach. He tries to make it seem like he was exhaustive in eliminating error, e.g. he notes that echo wouldn't change his analysis. That isn't to say that you can't prove that either two rifles or two shooters were present, but we don't know that he isolates two distinct sound sources reliably (with an observable, cohesive pattern).
Do you understand that lag time is not a measure of the difference in sound frequency of two sounds but the delay (seconds passed) between two sounds? He did not measure the difference in frequency between the two sounds, and we don't know how that could be useful unless you want to come up with a new type of analysis. There may be some complex analysis out there, but we are only concerned with the analysis that he did. Please look up what he means by lag time. Muzzle velocity, air resistance, tumble, caliber, and trajectory all matter when you are interpreting lag time.
JimmyLionstar1 ago
Do you understand that lag time is not a measure of the difference in sound frequency of two sounds but the delay (seconds passed) between two sounds?Yes.. and the sound travels at a speed of 345 m/s with 20% air humidity.
No more no less. The sound of speed is the sound of speed.. Do you see what i mean?
I am glad that you are maintaining you argument for me. we might not come to an agreement here. :)
But thats ok, and i do think you are right for questioning this source.
We should all do that on everything. /tumbs up
tcp ago
Fine, but everyone is telling you that you are missing something, and you need to be more careful because I've seen some valid points in response to your stance. Yes, one part of the difference formula involves the speed of sound. The other part involves the speed of the bullet. You don't get any distance just by knowing the speed of sound and when one sound, the rifle report, reaches you. This remains true even if you have a single measure of frequency (of the sound of the rifle report when it reaches you).
JimmyLionstar1 ago
I agree that the speed of the bullet will have an impact on where the second shooter is. But the sounds are recorded from the same place (arena), so even if the caliber change the velocity would not change that much. Meaning the "lag time" and the calculation he did with a .223 showed a change in frequency to closer range at more then 200 yards closer to the arena.
So even if you change the caliber it still would not make sense that is was just one shooter.
tcp ago
First, we can't really trust his analysis until it's repeated by someone. So, although it's possible to isolate distinct sound sources of shooters, we don't know if it was done without error. Second, you are making assumptions. For example, caliber matters so much that if a second shooter was at 275 yards, he could have chosen to fire subsonic rounds. He could reliably hit the crowd and the sound would arrive before the impacts. Are you just going to assume that whatever rounds and rifles were used were just "pretty much standard"? We have to see how this guy eliminated such errors. So even if the data is showing an unmistakable pattern, we need to make sure there aren't alternative explanations that also fit. A more rigorous analysis could give us the proof we are looking for. For now, I'll just say that if this guy didn't completely (although he did partially) fudge the results, he might have found something in the data that can't be easily explained by a single shooter.
riposte ago
Just watched this video elsewhere and came here to comment, and I see your discussion with the enthusiastic, but less than informed OP. This is clearly just the AK being fired at around 2100 fps as opposed to the AR at 3150. 50% increase in bullet speed means ~50% increase in "lag time" (although slightly less as the heavier ak rounds lose velocity less quickly).
The only conclusive evidence would be a recording showing the two rifles firing at the same time in such a way as the shooter could not possibly be switching between rifles. He did not provide this evidence.
JimmyLionstar1 ago
Well i do agree, i would love to see the raw data on this. But the science is there.. so it would show us some interesting data.
Cheers