Las Vegas Shooting

pilly

Overheal wrote: »

None of that means photos do not happen. Multiple user videos were operating during the concert, because concert. Most of which showed a lot of the initial moments of the attack. Photos and videos are primary sources of evidence, and it is not immoral to seek that information out. Nobody is glorifying the carnage in doing so. I don't feel there is a case for "moral outrage" at people for wishing to see said evidence.

People want to see DEAD BODIES, INJURIES AND BLOOD as evidence?

Why?

Aren't the funerals that will take place over the coming weeks enough evidence that these people are dead?

King Mob

Mousewar wrote: »

The "what's the point of a second shooter" question?. Answer seems obvious to me (not that I'm suggesting the conspiracy theories are true).
A lot of the conspiracy theories around these type of shootings focus on the idea that the official shooter is a patsy of some kind. Moreover, a patsy that has been influenced through the application of mind altering narcotics or some kind of chemical mind control or heavy suggestion or something like that. The thing with a patsy like that however is that they're not terribly efficient. So, you influence them to carry out the atrocity but they're unlikely to do a very good job (they probably can't even aim straight). So you have a marksman nearby who does most of the actual killing while the patsy can take the fall for the whole thing.
That's the idea anyway.

But this just begs more questions even if we leave aside the dubious assumption that this is how they do or would operate.

If the event is important enough that they need a specifically high body count and that a patsy is too unreliable to provide it, it's a bit of a risk to use such a pasty in the first place, so I'm unsure of what the benefit is for that.
Most conspiracy theories don't suggest that he is a patsy. Some even claim he doesn't exist.
Even then, assuming they need a patsy for whatever reason, there's easier ways to use him rather than with a second gunner. Simply kill him first, have the professional do the shooting from one position, leave the body as an apparent suicide, then slip away before the cops show up.
Adding a second gunner adds a lot of risk in that it would leave clues to be found which apparently spoils the conspiracy.

And again all of this is based on the assumption that such a patsy would be unable to cause so much destruction, which I'm not sure is a particularly solid one. If they were going to the bother of convincing and brainwashing this guy to go as far as mass shooting people, I don't see why they would be particularly worried about his abilities.

The point of my question is that it highlights the absurdity of the premise.
The only reason a second gunner exists is to provide clues and mistakes for keyboard detectives to find.
If the Shadowy They existed and wanted to fake a mass shooting, then they wouldn't make so many pointless needlessly avoidable mistakes. Like for instance, a lot of the idea of a second gunner relies on apparent muzzle flashes: https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/muzzle-devices/flash-hiders/index.htm

The only explanation I've seen that's logically consistent in how it explains why they leave such clues is that they are Satanists working evil magic on people and it needs them to leave clues for some reason.
I've not heard any that are logically consistent and not silly.

pilly

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

<snip>

I was heavily involved in the water protests and was in charge of one of the Says No to Water Charges pages. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself but there were paid trolls who came onto the page trying to discredit the Says No movement. I got kind of good at giving them enough rope to hang themselves so it was obvious for all to see that they were indeed paid trolls.

So that's a little bit about my background. It all seems so far fetched until you experience it for yourself the lengths these weirdo's will go to.

Okay, there's a huge stretch between paid trolls on a No to Water campaign and a mass shooting. Sorry but I don't buy it.

Overheal

pilly wrote: »

People want to see DEAD BODIES, INJURIES AND BLOOD as evidence?

Why?

Aren't the funerals that will take place over the coming weeks enough evidence that these people are dead?

Why? Forensic evidence. Forensic science is a huge element of law. That's why we have forensic analysts, morticians, ballistics experts, etc.

For such a scale of an attack, it is a matter of public interest to desire access to at least the fundamental information: namely, photos and video of the attack and/or the aftermath. They can reveal a lot.

Without video evidence, it would have been the word of Philandro Castille's girflfriend, and the police officer, as to what happened. Numerous other high profile cases where photography was paramount in informing the public about the situations - everything from Tamir Rice, to the coordinated attacks on September 11th, just for instance. There was also the original wikileaks dump which showed a US attack helicopter killing news reporters and killing first-responders to the scene of the attack. Many people would prefer to tackle this evidence first hand, rather than have it relayed by someone else.

If you find it repugnant, that's your opinion, but it is not constructive to this discussion to wag the bell of shame at others who wish to explore the evidence.

sabat

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn't match with the analysis from some sources such as snopes, who point out he appears to have frequented the high stakes video poker machines:

It does match what I was saying about money laundering though...

ShowMeTheCash

Have the released any footage of him taking the guns to the hotel room?

dicky dunne

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim that I know what happened. What I do know for sure is that my BS detector is detecting that things don't add up. The possibilities are endless as to what actually happened.

Things that don't add up for me:

I haven't seen any video or photo evidence of any dead bodies. Or anyone injured. (Not that I enjoy that kind of thing, but its not as if I haven't seen photo's of dead bodies before. And if there really were deaths we owe it to them to bring the real killers to justice.)

I watched a video last night and could clearly hear a girl say "there doesn't seem to be anyone hurt" I just can't seem to find that video right now. It was footage from the middle of the crowd.

The brother just doesn't come across as genuine. And after looking into Sandy Hook and seeing the really bad acting in other hoaxes, a pattern begins to form pretty quickly. It was the brother that did it for me. I knew straight away something wasn't right.

Lots of video's show gunshots sounding close by and then another round of shots that sound further away.

There may not have been anyone wounded but if there were, there should be gunshot holes in the ground. I haven't seen any pictures of any gunshot holes yet.

I was in Vegas on Sunday night, the last night of my trip, on the flight home there was a couple who were on their honeymoon and cut it short as they were at the concert, he said it was mass panic and they didnt know where the gunfire was coming from, he also said he saw some horrific sights, but given the fact he was a normal human being he didnt stop to take pictures of the dead/wounded and instead rather ran for his life

King Mob

Why are people asking to see the bodies blood etc? Are you really entertaining the possibility that no one was killed?

Where They using a second shooter and both shooters were firing blanks?

Mousewar

King Mob wrote: »

But this just begs more questions even if we leave aside the dubious assumption that this is how they do or would operate.

If the event is important enough that they need a specifically high body count and that a patsy is too unreliable to provide it, it's a bit of a risk to use such a pasty in the first place, so I'm unsure of what the benefit is for that.
Most conspiracy theories don't suggest that he is a patsy. Some even claim he doesn't exist.

Well, he exists as a patsy anyway as there is his name everywhere (whether he physically exists or not is, funnily enough, immaterial now).

And you're unsure what the benefit of a patsy is? I mean, surely it's obvious, if this shadowy 'they' exist and want to carry out this kind of atrocity for whatever reason (gun control or whatever) then it's obvious why they need someone who is not them to take the rap?

King Mob wrote: »

Even then, assuming they need a patsy for whatever reason, there's easier ways to use him rather than with a second gunner. Simply kill him first, have the professional do the shooting from one position, leave the body as an apparent suicide, then slip away before the cops show up.

Yes possibly, but I'm not sure it's that much more believable than the scenario as I presented it. And surely, having the patsy actually shooting makes it far easier for the authorities to accept him as the perpetrator.
Again, I'm not suggesting this as true but you've gone on a lot about the ridiculousness of a second shooter but within the world of conspiracy it's as sound as anything else. Anyway, all you seemed to require was some kind of logical reason for one to be there and I think what I described meets that requirement (again I'm not supporting it).

King Mob wrote: »

Adding a second gunner adds a lot of risk in that it would leave clues to be found which apparently spoils the conspiracy.

And again all of this is based on the assumption that such a patsy would be unable to cause so much destruction, which I'm not sure is a particularly solid one. If they were going to the bother of convincing and brainwashing this guy to go as far as mass shooting people, I don't see why they would be particularly worried about his abilities.

Mind altering drugs leave you barely able to stand up, let alone aim and successfully fire an automatic weapon. The risk of adding a second shooter is justified by the fact that the whole plan would fail without one.

King Mob wrote: »

The point of my question is that it highlights the absurdity of the premise.
The only reason a second gunner exists is to provide clues and mistakes for keyboard detectives to find.
If the Shadowy They existed and wanted to fake a mass shooting, then they wouldn't make so many pointless needlessly avoidable mistakes. Like for instance, a lot of the idea of a second gunner relies on apparent muzzle flashes: https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/muzzle-devices/flash-hiders/index.htm

The only explanation I've seen that's logically consistent in how it explains why they leave such clues is that they are Satanists working evil magic on people and it needs them to leave clues for some reason.
I've not heard any that are logically consistent and not silly.

The Satanists you find logical?

pilly

Overheal wrote: »

Why? Forensic evidence. Forensic science is a huge element of law. That's why we have forensic analysts, morticians, ballistics experts, etc.

For such a scale of an attack, it is a matter of public interest to desire access to at least the fundamental information: namely, photos and video of the attack and/or the aftermath. They can reveal a lot.

Without video evidence, it would have been the word of Philandro Castille's girflfriend, and the police officer, as to what happened. Numerous other high profile cases where photography was paramount in informing the public about the situations - everything from Tamir Rice, to the coordinated attacks on September 11th, just for instance. There was also the original wikileaks dump which showed a US attack helicopter killing news reporters and killing first-responders to the scene of the attack. Many people would prefer to tackle this evidence first hand, rather than have it relayed by someone else.

If you find it repugnant, that's your opinion, but it is not constructive to this discussion to wag the bell of shame at others who wish to explore the evidence.

Forensic evidence and science? Sorry, didn't realise you were a forensic analyst on the case. :rolleyes:

Overheal

pilly wrote: »

Forensic evidence and science? Sorry, didn't realise you were a forensic analyst on the case. :rolleyes:

I don't think someone has to be to want to see first hand evidence. Knock off the snarky attitude.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes they have ruled this out. :rolleyes:

Can you point towards a credible source stating this ?

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Why are people asking to see the bodies blood etc? Are you really entertaining the possibility that no one was killed?

Where They using a second shooter and both shooters were firing blanks?

There were even some claiming that the sound of the gunfire was coming from the speakers, initially. Obviously I believe that its easy to debunk this wasn't the case.

RocketRaccoon

WMP wrote: »

I'm not looking for gory footage, rather some convincing proof to back up the official story.

None of the footage I've seen matches the claim that 59 people were shot dead. I like everyone was shocked when the news broke, but I'm no longer convinced its real.

I have told you there is a video out there which will show you exactly what you want to see. It is a man running around between bodies seeing if they can be saved, he checks pulses etc.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Why? Forensic evidence. Forensic science is a huge element of law. That's why we have forensic analysts, morticians, ballistics experts, etc.

After that piece from John Oliver my believe in these so called experts took a nose dive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

After that piece from John Oliver my believe in these so called experts took a nose dive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScmJvmzDcG0

Sure. But the body of that deep-dive from Oliver doesn't much apply to seeking out the primary evidence of the attack in this case, more to how science applies towards convictions within law. Given that the shooter is dead, I don't think he will get his day in court.

King Mob

Mousewar wrote: »

Well, he exists as a patsy anyway as there is his name everywhere (whether he physically exists or not is, funnily enough, immaterial now).

And you're unsure what the benefit of a patsy is? I mean, surely it's obvious, if this shadowy 'they' exist and want to carry out this kind of atrocity for whatever reason (gun control or whatever) then it's obvious why they need someone who is not them to take the rap?

This is true. But it can be easily achieved without going to the bother of mind controlling some random guy and pumping him full of drugs to the point where he can't actually do the thing you want him to do. It seems a bit more round about.

Mousewar wrote: »

Yes possibly, but I'm not sure it's that much more believable than the scenario as I presented it. And surely, having the patsy actually shooting makes it far easier for the authorities to accept him as the perpetrator.

But to pull off the conspiracy, specially with the second shooter, you're going to need the authorities in your pocket anyway, so I'm not sure why that would be a concern.

Mousewar wrote: »

Again, I'm not suggesting this as true but you're gone on a lot about the ridiculousness of a second shooter but within the world of conspiracy it's as sound as anything else.
Anyway, all you seemed to require was some kind of logical reason for one to be there and I think what I described meets that requirement (again I'm not supporting it).

I grant you that your suggestion is more well thought out and viable than most suggestions that I've seen.

Mousewar wrote: »

Mind altering drugs leave you barely able to stand up, let alone aim and successfully fire an automatic weapon. The risk of adding a second shooter is justified by the fact that the whole plan would fail without one.

But this is a bit of a tautology. They need to risk a second shooter when they are taking the risk of using a drugged up patsy... Maybe if they pulled back on the drugs a bit or give him something to make him wired it would be far easier.
And this is assuming that we can say anything authoritative about the effects of the mind controlling drugs the Shadowy They are using...

Mousewar wrote: »

The Satanists you find logical?

More self-consistent at least. It doesn't run into the same logical problems that other explanations do.
But it's far from a viable or reasonable or sane explanation

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Sure. But the body of that deep-dive from Oliver doesn't much apply to seeking out the primary evidence of the attack in this case, more to how science applies towards convictions within law. Given that the shooter is dead, I don't think he will get his day in court.

True .... Would be interesting to see though what comes up in regards to possible forensic evidence collected from the room

Overheal

Maybe if they pulled back on the drugs a bit or give him something to make him wired it would be far easier.

I'm just thinking of the movie Shooter, where no special drugs or mind control were needed, just clever manipulation of the patsy but I digress.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

I'm just thinking of the movie Shooter, where no special drugs or mind control were needed, just clever manipulation of the patsy but I digress.

Or there's the possibility that they simply find someone with the predisposition to go on a mass shooting and give him a hand. Or they just suppress warning signs and investigations to allow someone to do the mass shooting they were planning on anyway.

There are tons of ways to use a single shooter that doesn't leave a clear, easily findable clue.

J Mysterio

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFKZtZhphhU

Then there's the brother. Not normal behaviour at all.

Crocodile tears one minute, smiling the next.

Looks like Louis CK

DinkyDinosaur

pilly wrote: »

Okay, there's a huge stretch between paid trolls on a No to Water campaign and a mass shooting. Sorry but I don't buy it.

Half my message was deleted by the moderator so that statement of mine on it's own doesn't make any sense.

What I was trying to establish was a pattern.

Obviously there is a chasm of difference between a shooting and a paid troll on a water charges page. But the character of these people is very similar. It seems like a far fetched possibility that there would actually be people who get paid to lie on the internet and it seems bizarre that people get paid to act out a shooting. But it happens.

There is a distinct pattern in the behaviour of these people giving interviews after the shootings. The body language of lies is what connects all of them.

-The smiling eyes

-The crocodile tears

-The anomalies in their stories

-The duping delight...............

DinkyDinosaur

Some of the comments from the comments section:

Looks like a paid troll trying to fan the flames of a race war.




tower gal:

STUPID WHITE TRASH THE BROTHER ALSO LOOKS SICK , A HILLBILLY ,DEPLORABLE RACE!!
10

16 hours ago
XD. But seriously, why are all these mass killers taciturn, Caucasian males of northern European heritage? When it comes to violence, you might, for example ,expect stereotypically to find southern European Mafia types. But you don't. None are black, latino, Asian ..... Maybe it's something like a gene only passed down by Neanderthals. IDK. But I think as a society we better stop the denial and start asking why.

Dana LaMure
16 hours ago
Your response is as sickening as it is ignorant.


And further down tower gal again:

CAUCASIANS ARE MURDERERS !period!
8
David Borchman
David Borchman
17 hours ago
tower gal Caucasians live near the Caucasus mountains. Most "whites" don't live near the Caucasus.
1
Curtis Bowland
Curtis Bowland
17 hours ago
tower gal if there's any other way you could possibly sound more unintelligent nobody in this room is coming up with it.It could possibly be that killer Gene that lurks in the heart of all of us killer Caucasians.
2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Gu2bDyPno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Gu2bDyPno

Overheal

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

Some of the comments from the comments section:

What do comments from the comments section of youtube add to this discussion?

(When has the comments section on youtube *ever* added anything to a discussion?)

DinkyDinosaur

Overheal wrote: »

What do comments from the comments section of youtube add to this discussion?

(When has the comments section on youtube *ever* added anything to a discussion?)

The discussion about the motive for all these shootings. The discussion about paid trolls in forums. The discussion about the theory that there is going to be a civil war?

Overheal

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

The discussion about the motive for all these shootings. The discussion about paid trolls in forums. The discussion about the theory that there is going to be a civil war?

It's essentially impossible to prove that trolls in the youtube comments are paid or deranged or Russians or all of the above. Perhaps if you're the government with the intelligence apparatus to research the origination of where users are posting in from - you could tell if they were Russians or not - but none of that is going to help prove they were paid to do or say anything.

There's always "going to be a civil war" just like there's an "end of the world" scheduled by someone or other every couple of months, but I don't think you will find bonafide evidence of it in the youtube comments. Everyone with an agenda will use about any excuse to say their dumb **** ("This hurricane was caused by the gays," etc) that doesn't mean hurricanes are a conspiracy to eradicate the gays. Same logic applies here: racists spout racist crap on youtube, doesn't mean it was an attack orchestrated to rile up a race war, all it means is some racists on youtube want to use it as an excuse to spout racist nonsense on youtube.

murphthesmurf

Overheal wrote: »

None of that means photos do not happen. Multiple user videos were operating during the concert, because concert. Most of which showed a lot of the initial moments of the attack. Photos and videos are primary sources of evidence, and it is not immoral to seek that information out. Nobody is glorifying the carnage in doing so. I don't feel there is a case for "moral outrage" at people for wishing to see said evidence.

You are not an investigator, you are not a law official, so you have no right to 'see the evidence'. The appropriate law officials will have the unpleasant job of sifting through the hours of camera and cctv footage of the attack to find anything which may be of interest to them. You on the other hand are some anonymous man or woman on the Internet posting on a conspiracy forum.
It is not up to you what is primary evidence and what is not. Insisting on seeing images of the dead and seriously injured for your own proof is very disturbing. Why do you need to see pictures of someone's son/daughter laying in a pool of blood before you believe they are not just acting.

iLikeWaffles

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Audio and video can move in and out sync at the micro second level, good software usually compensats to a degree, the accuracy of your speed of sound vs light at the microsecond maybe even millisecond level will probably not be accurate so to base the real calculation and values is pointless to a certain level, it might be reliable to about 0.1 seconds.
That being said there gap is over 0.1 seconds 2+ so for that reason it is probably OK and reasonable to assume the popping and flashing are not the same source.

Okay, first off you are dealing with milliseconds (0.1) not micro seconds (0.001) You would be unable to, with the naked eye, be able see any differences shorter than 12ms the human brain is just not capable of it. It takes at least that amount of time to register.

Your response is a start but you have still not answered the question. To your eyes does the audio look in sync with the video? Iv'e given multiple examples of the audio being in sync.

The argument is pretty simple, you agree that the flash appears to start more than 2 seconds before you hear the sound, YES? And that they could not be the same source, Correct... Therefore???

I argue that the flash you see has nothing to do with gunfire and have given proof that it has nothing to do with gunfire.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt you mean milliseconds when talking about your sync issue please provide proof that the picture in the video is out of sync. Failing that then you must conclude that the flash is not from a "Muzzle"

If you do re watch the video please take this into account:

The Camera pans to the flash in the window
The audio of the taxi driver sounds like its bouncing off the window (boxy sounding)
Her reaction to the flash coincides with her seeing the flash and her reaction to the pop 2 seconds later.
Her reacting to the pop and the flash and upon realising that she might be in danger all appear in sync as is the noise that comes from the engine as she pressing her foot on the accelerator and goes over the bump.

Now please do take into account the time that the audio and video would be out of sync by your reckoning but also remember that the other audio in the video should also be out of sync for the same amount of time. Is there a big difference for the more than 2 seconds the flash displays before you hear the pop?

The other question I asked Overheal is not answered either. Overheal could you please acknowledge this question. You had a problem with the equation ShowmeTheCash has a problem with the video sync.

Overheal wrote: »

Again, the bullets could be Mach 1.7 but the sound they make would still travel at the same speed. That's my point.

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

Alright Maybe so, you're saying that the muzzle flash from any gun will always be the same speed right? I'm no gun expert so you might be right. Taking the new speed of 331.2m/s, the speed of sound, does that make the flash from the window and the first pop from the gun equal to the corresponding approximate distance the car was away from the flash using the time it took for you to see the flashing and your finger to hit the button on the stopwatch?

Take the speed of sound 331.2 and the time 1.5 multiply them and that is how far the vehicle was away from the flash. 496.8 meters (.49km) did the vehicle look like it was that far away? (340x1.5=510)

Does the car look that far away?


Just to be SUPER CLEAR here and then we can all move on and make up other fantasies surrounding the death /the supposed death of many people. The flash on 10th floor - not 4th or any other floor - the 10th floor is where the only visual flash occurs when the gunfire is heard. It has nothing to do with gunfire therefore there is no conspiracy to this being from a gun which is claimed and is continually being claimed by people in the thread or some iteration of it (4th floor). You are getting hung up when there is better conspiracy to be trying to prove.

Overheal

I stated in that post the approximate distance of the car. It pulled into the valet area of the hotel and drove shortly away before panning up. It was still in the driveway of the property, not on either of the main boulevards the hotel is on the corner of. I felt no need to repeat this information and assumed the question was rhetorical. To repeat: I guesstimated the car via google maps to be approximately 350-400 *feet* away from the main structure of the hotel/where that strobe light window was/is located. I agree the 4th floor shooter theory is now totally bunk, and have said this a few times, I only challenged math that was improperly applied.

As for seeing the evidence, I never once claimed a right to see the evidence, I am only arguing that the public has an interest in seeing it, and that is why you will find people seeking that evidence. The self-righteous zeal against this idea is a bit tone deaf imo. I understand this is a human tragedy but hey, we don't destroy the photographic evidence of the holocaust either, as it has historic merit and is of public interest. There is no 'insistence' or demand for this evidence.

iLikeWaffles

Overheal wrote: »

I stated in that post the approximate distance of the car. It pulled into the valet area of the hotel and drove shortly away before panning up. It was still in the driveway of the property, not on either of the main boulevards the hotel is on the corner of. I felt no need to repeat this information and assumed the question was rhetorical. To repeat: I guesstimated the car via google maps to be approximately 350-400 *feet* away from the main structure of the hotel/where that strobe light window was/is located. I agree the 4th floor shooter theory is now totally bunk, and have said this a few times, I only challenged math that was improperly applied.

I didn't ask you to repeat anything or explain your position or how you came your conclusion. You challenged the math and you are correct in doing so, with the corrected maths that you have challenged -

Simple easy question to answer still not answered it, it was a direct question! It has two answers neither of which are long winded YES or NO?

for the purposes of fact! Does the car look .49 km away from the building?