in #vegas3 years ago (edited)

Over the past few days I’ve watched a number of videos, ostensibly created by cell-phones in the hands of some of those who attended the ill-fated concert in Las Vegas.  In doing so I found 3 of them to be particularly interesting. 

  1.  Mike Adams, the “Health Ranger”, provided an excellent “forensic acoustical analysisof the shots recorded by multiple individuals who posted their videos of the “tragedy” online. As a physics-literate individual, I give him full credit for an excellent job. His conclusion, with which I have no argument, is that the acoustic record proves unequivocally that the gunshot sounds recorded had to have been made by at least 2 shooters firing from at least 2 distinct distances (approximately 450 and 260 yards) from the recording microphones.

  2. Not long after watching Mr. Adams video, I read an article by Paul Craig Roberts who reports that a highly experienced military surgeon, who watched the videos of hospitalized concert-goers, concluded:   “...I have now viewed most of the mainstream media   reports on YouTube of the victims in hospital and I can  assure you they are all actors and not one of these people  is a legitimate patient. “  

  The link above explains at some length how he reached this conclusion. Briefly stated, the “patients” were way too comfortable for folks actually recovering from surgery after being shot with a high-powered rifle.

  So I asked myself, how is it possible to have credible acoustic evidence that several thousand rounds were fired from multiple locations, while at the same time no one actually got shot?  

  3. I noticed a possible clue that might lead to an answer to this knotty question on one of the videos. Unfortunately, I failed to bookmark the video and have been unable to find it since. It was the voice of an on-site witness who (I paraphrase) exclaimed, “Wait! It’s not real gunfire. The sounds are coming from the concert speakers!” 

  If that statement was true it would certainly explain the otherwise conflicting reports – but how could such a thing come about? 

  Imagine the following scenario: A government agency (any one of several) decides to fake a mass shooting – similar to the one in Sandy Hook, only more dramatic. The plan is to play recorded gunfire over the concert speakers while paid crisis actors fall down pretending to be shot. But first the shots must be recorded. The agency understands that the bullets are supposed to be supersonic and the sound of the bullets hitting pavement must precede the sounds of the gun (of the “lone gunman”) firing.  

   So one fine day a team appears at an isolated military base in the Nevada dessert – perhaps one that had been “officially” closed. They put microphones and stereo recording equipment at the edge of a stretch of pavement, back away 450 yards to create the right “lag-time”, and an expert shooter barrages the pavement near the microphones with full auto fire from an M16 rifle – say 1,500 rounds in a 5 to 10 minute timeframe.  

   Later that day the architects of this deception listen to the recording and decide the sounds aren’t sufficiently threatening – so someone suggests recording another 1,500 shots and combining the two recordings into one. Technically, it would have made more sense to simply duplicate the recording, phase shift it with respect to the first, and combine the 2 copies. 

  It was at this point that the team made a serious error. Not understanding the intricacies of acoustic analysis, the second round of shooting wasn’t performed at the same location. Instead the second shooter fired from just 260 yards away, not realizing that the analysis would reveal the change. The result of this mistake was the construction of a recording inadvertently revealing the existence of at least 2 shooters – which of course there were. - they just weren’t in Vegas.  

   One might well ask why the perpetrators of this deception would set up such a hoax instead of just shooting a bunch of people as a “false flag” attack. After all, they didn’t hesitate to kill a few thousand people on 9/11/2001. Why change their game-plan (assuming it’s the same gang – or their buddies)? I can only speculate about this; but I’m guessing that the killing of several thousand innocent victims on 9/11 weighed heavily on the consciences of the hundreds of people who were involved – making control of the aftermath by killing and intimidating potential whistle-blowers an expensive and stressful undertaking.  

   On the other hand, the crisis actors involved in Orlando, Boston, Sandy Hook, and Las Vegas know that no one was killed – so their burden of guilt is far less than that of the people involved in 9/11. Swear them to secrecy, threaten them with dire consequences for betrayal (truth-telling) and hand them a fat paycheck – and they all go home happy to have gotten the acting gig. To them it was just another piece of fiction in which they performed. At the end of the day, the psychopaths and sociopaths responsible have simply caught on that an elaborate false-flag hoax is simply more cost-effective and less risky than a real one.  

   Bob Podolsky 


I tend to believe the entire thing is simply a ongoing distraction. Leading many "truthers" on a wild goose chase by simply keeping it tantalizing enough for them to continue to look.

For the vast majority they will accept the narrative while those who don't trust the government are left with just enough evidence to understand that the official story is incorrect but not enough to ever figure out that the entire thing was just an event to draw their attention away from something else that they won't ever have time to investigate. In the meantime the masses will be divided into those who don't believe and those who have no interest in not disbelieving. Divided once again while obscuring what may be really important.