Las Vegas Shooting

Overheal

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

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?

Does the car look .49 km away from the building?

Like I just said:

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.

iLikeWaffles

Overheal wrote: »

Like I just said:

How are you a mod??

Its a simple question does the car look .49km away from the building?????

Overheal

I have answered your question. The car was at most, 400 FEET away. That is, in meters, 122 METERS, or 0.122 kilometers away.

This has nothing to do with me being a mod, but do not argue with moderators on-threads about moderation issues. You're around long enough to know.

iLikeWaffles

Overheal wrote: »

I have answered your question. The car was at most, 400 FEET away. That is, in meters, 122 METERS, or 0.122 Meters away.

This has nothing to do with me being a mod, but do not argue with moderators on-threads about moderation issues. You're around long enough to know.

Thanks lets take this to pm. Yes...

I'm not arguing about a moderation issue you are woefully in the wrong handing out the infraction there

You are correct it does not have anything to do about being a mod in fact I was not asking you to answer that question, which was a rhetorical question, as a moderator.

Overheal

You were asked to follow the site rules. Remember that when you return next week.

rubadub

DoctaDee wrote: »

I lurk around CT from time to time and came across this in relation to the muzzle flash from the 4th floor. It was filmed earlier in the night and I can't say whether it correlates with the taxi driver footage from later in the night, but it gives a certain perspective to the mirroring of light on The Mandalay

This was quite possibly one of his many accomplishes testing out the fire alarm system earlier on. He was shooting blanks and had a special silencer so as not to draw attention. Maybe soundproofed the room.

I was on several stag dos and ended up drinking in the rooms of who I can only assume were ex MI6 agents or some other sort of special operatives who had incredible specialist training in tactical techniques to overcome smoke alarms, covering them in shower caps and bin liners supplied by the actual hotel themselves. In the morning these guys also used the same "2 window airflow" technique to rid the room of the stench of kebabs & smoke.

If he did indeed shoot legitimate rounds and broke the glass I would guess he smuggled in extra windows to the room, with no metal they would not have been detected. The windows seem large but he could have brought up sand in his boots and made his own windows in the room using the likes of thermite as a heat source.

The guy was an accountant, RETIRED ACCOUNTANT, we all know accountants are mild mannered boring types who would never hurt a fly, I think they have to take an oath or something. He was retired and 64, a doddery old weakling, sure we all heard the Beatles song.

His brother was acting really surprised, in all other massacres I can recall the siblings have always said they knew it was inevitable.

King Mob

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

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...............

This just begs the same question conspiracy theorist have been dodging.

Why would they use an apparently crap actor?
Why not just interview the families of real victims?

If they just used a real single shooter, there would be plenty of such people who they could easily interview and wouldn't leave clues.

Or at they at the very least would hire actors that are able to act how such real people should act. Are they unable to find good actors? Are they unable to afford good actors?

But it also begs the question that if every single shooting in the last few decades is fake, and they only interview fake people and actors, on what are you basing your opinion that they are acting differently from real people?
How do you know what such a person would actually act like?

Again, it just makes far far more sense for Them to use a real shooter. All these "clues" point to a ridiculously over the top and pointlessly complicated plot.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

This just begs the same question conspiracy theorist have been dodging.

A credible blue source please stating there was no second shooter

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

A credible blue source please stating there was no second shooter

Reading literally any news report on it in the last few days would tell you this.

https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Press%20Releases/PO%20235%2010-02-17.pdf

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department identified the lone suspect involved in the late night mass shooting on the Las Vegas Strip as 64-year-old, Stephen Craig Paddock, a white male from Mesquite, Nevada.

RocketRaccoon

weisses wrote: »

A credible blue source please stating there was no second shooter

What do you consider credible?

yourdeadwright

I think if he didn't do it himself,I'd say what happened was it was an arms deal that went wrong ,
He was killed by the potential buyer who then turned the guns on the crowd and escaped,
I seen somewhere that he has previously worked for an defence force supplier ? and someone mentioned Nasa also ,
If he worked for the government or someone close, there is no way they would disclose it was an arms deal that went wrong as it would cause bigger panic and the world would want to know what they where up to , so with him dead its easy to blame him ,
That's his real brother who would be so so confused to what went on and no idea of his dealings ,
 
I don't think this is the case he was probably just some nutter,

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Reading literally any news report on it in the last few days would tell you this.

https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Press%20Releases/PO%20235%2010-02-17.pdf

Ahh come on now

That piece is from October 2

The Sheriffs statement was Yesterday.. stating

“You’ve got to make the assumption he had to have some help at some point.”

So I ask again based on the latest information given by authorities where do they rule out a second shooter ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Ahh come on now

That piece is from October 2

The Sheriffs statement was Yesterday.. stating



So I ask again based on the latest information given by authorities where do they rule out a second shooter ?

What number of shooters do they explicitly need to rule out in a statement? 2/3/4/1000 shooters? Why specifically 2?

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Ahh come on now

That piece is from October 2

The Sheriffs statement was Yesterday.. stating

So I ask again based on the latest information given by authorities where do they rule out a second shooter ?

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/las-vegas-police-debunk-second-shooter-rumor/825886094

"I want to emphasize Paddock is solely responsible for this heinous act. We are aware of the rumors outside of the media and also on social media that there was more than one assailant," said Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said.

Dohnjoe

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

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 posted them in this very thread (marked NSFW)

Post #22 on the second page
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104866798&postcount=22

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.

59 dead, hundreds wounded rushed to multiple hospitals around Vegas. Seriously this stuff takes seconds to find online

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-20171003-story.html

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.

People react in different ways to grief.

We had a thread here asking conspiracy theorists to explain this "crisis actors" theory. How hundreds/thousands of people; victims, their friends/relatives/families, emergency responders, medical staff, doctors, surgeons, police, investigators, officials, etc could ALL be actors.

No one could explain it.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Ahh come on now

That piece is from October 2

The Sheriffs statement was Yesterday.. stating

So I ask again based on the latest information given by authorities where do they rule out a second shooter ?

Why assume help specifically means a second shooter. Financial help, logistical help, etc at any point in the timeline

1. The authorities have repeatedly stated they are not looking for more shooters.

2. The authorities are less certain whether he acted completely alone from start to finish. He may have had help purchasing, stockpiling the weapons, concealing them, etc. However as time passes they are appearing to indicate (recently) that they believe he acted entirely alone in the whole process

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Ahh come on now

That piece is from October 2

The Sheriffs statement was Yesterday.. stating

So I ask again based on the latest information given by authorities where do they rule out a second shooter ?

I'm sorry I cannot provide anything more official or clear than the Las Vegas Police department directly stating that there was a lone shooter.

I'm not sure what you would possibly accept if you aren't going to accept that.
I'm not sure what you would accept if you're not going to accept literally every single news report and every subsequent statement by the authorities.

So at what point will you accept that the authorities are not looking for any more shooters?
If they state that there is not any other shooters (which they have done, you just don't accept for some reason) would you even believe them?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What number of shooters do they explicitly need to rule out in a statement? 2/3/4/1000 shooters? Why specifically 2?

Please stop answering questions with a question

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/local-news/las-vegas-police-debunk-second-shooter-rumor/825886094

"I want to emphasize Paddock is solely responsible for this heinous act. We are aware of the rumors outside of the media and also on social media that there was more than one assailant," said Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said.

Then that is contradicting Lombardo's statement

“You’ve got to make the assumption he had to have some help at some point.”

RocketRaccoon

weisses wrote: »

Then that is contradicting Lombardo's statement

He had help. He didn't have a second shooter with him.

Help could mean someone gave him a hand bringing in the guns, ammo etc, or just driving him to the hotel. Cop on ffs.

weisses

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

He had help. He didn't have a second shooter with him.

Help could mean someone gave him a hand bringing in the guns, ammo etc, or just driving him to the hotel. Cop on ffs.

Help could also mean .. a second shooter

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why assume help specifically means a second shooter. Financial help, logistical help, etc at any point in the timeline

To rule it out so early is as ridiculous as stating there definitely was a second shooter .... He had help ... time will tell what help at what stage

RocketRaccoon

weisses wrote: »

Help could also mean .. a second shooter

Which they have repeatedly said is not a line of enquiry they are following.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

To rule it out so early is as ridiculous as stating there definitely was a second shooter .... He had help ... time will tell what help at what stage

Why rule out a third shooter or a forth or a fifth?

Why rule out that he was with ISIS?

Why rule out he is with the Michigan militia?


Because the dozens of departments, experts, investigators and detectives handling the investigation and with access to all the evidence are confident enough at this stage in the investigation to rule out certain things

That's how any investigation works. There isn't some arbitrary rule somewhere that claims they have to wait a year before ruling things out. It's done based on deduction, evidence, logic.

e.g. they are investigating an aircrash, depending on the circumstances, they can rule out a hijack early on. They don't have to "hold onto" a potential cause for a "long time" if it isn't plausible.

Sorry to sound condescending, but the fixation on a second shooter (not 3, not 4) is so arbitrary and random that it's starting to smack of people clutching at straws, anything in order to discredit the authorities in any remote way possible for the sake of being pedantic or obtuse (it also has nothing to do with "just asking questions" either, it's almost completely illogical at this stage)

Internet amateurs making random assumptions based on random hunches does not carry the same weight as statements from the combined operations with access to the crime scene and all information

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why rule out a third shooter or a forth or a fifth?

Why rule out that he was with ISIS?

Why rule out he is with the Michigan militia?


Because the dozens of departments, experts, investigators and detectives handling the investigation and with access to all the evidence are confident enough at this stage in the investigation to rule out certain things

That's how any investigation works. There isn't some arbitrary rule somewhere that claims they have to wait a year before ruling things out. It's done based on deduction, evidence, logic.

e.g. they are investigating an aircrash, depending on the circumstances, they can rule out a hijack early on. They don't have to "hold onto" a potential cause for a "long time" if it isn't plausible.

Sorry to sound condescending, but the fixation on a second shooter (not 3, not 4) is so arbitrary and random that it's starting to smack of people clutching at straws, anything in order to discredit the authorities in any remote way possible for the sake of being pedantic or obtuse (it also has nothing to do with "just asking questions" either, it's almost completely illogical at this stage)

Internet amateurs making random assumptions based on random hunches does not carry the same weight as statements from the combined operations with access to the crime scene and all information

Is this ruling something out ?

The shooting lasted nine to 11 minutes, with the first reports of gunshots beginning Sunday at 10:05 p.m. PT and the final shots being fired at 10:15 p.m., authorities said. It's believed that Paddock was the sole shooter in the attack.

No its not ... They are still investigating ...which is logical ... 2 windows smashed at different angles.... at least 23 guns and 10 bags in the suite ....

We do not know what they know .... Misinformation could help the actual investigation

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

No its not ... They are still investigating ...which is logical ... 2 windows smashed at different angles.... at least 23 guns and 10 bags in the suite ....

We do not know what they know .... Misinformation could help the actual investigation

According to the investigation he bought all those guns over a period of 13 months, he brought them to the hotel room in nearly a dozen trips. He shot out both windows.

According to the investigation there was no second shooter, they are not looking for a second shooter (or a third or a forth or a fifth, etc)

They have released this information to the public

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

To rule it out so early is as ridiculous as stating there definitely was a second shooter .... He had help ... time will tell what help at what stage

Can you point to anything official that states in clear terms that they are looking for any other shooters?
Not people helping him, but specifically and clearly other shooters?

If not, will you accept that they aren't looking for one?
Will you accept that there wasn't a second shooter?

At what point will you accept there wasn't one?

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

I'm sorry I cannot provide anything more official or clear than the Las Vegas Police department directly stating that there was a lone shooter.

I'm not sure what you would possibly accept if you aren't going to accept that.
I'm not sure what you would accept if you're not going to accept literally every single news report and every subsequent statement by the authorities.

So at what point will you accept that the authorities are not looking for any more shooters?
If they state that there is not any other shooters (which they have done, you just don't accept for some reason) would you even believe them?

I think the issue some people have is you are not providing anything you are regurgitating what the Las Vagas Police dep is saying.

I think we all know or have read what the Police dept has stated.

This is a conspiracy forum, if this was/is a conspiracy then the first thing that would be scrutinized is what statements have been released. If a conspiracy then the statemented would be design to mislead people.

Even if the Police Dept are pretty sure he acted alone this does not mean they will not be looking or investigating all possible angles.

Did anyone know what his plans where?
Did anyone help with this plans?
Did anyone perhaps coerce him?

The investigation at this stage seems to suggest one shooter I would think even if they had been following leads to a second shooter and wanted to keep it in house they would of released it probably by now.

I do not accept everything the authorities tell me, for the most part people make mistakes when it comes to things like this, the hotel, the police dept have their own interests to look after and their own plan which usually never gets released to the public. Policing is not transparent.... That does not mean what they are saying is lies it is just something to be aware of.

You seem to take the approach "I believe everything I am told, therefore no need to look for anything else."

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think the issue some people have is you are not providing anything you are regurgitating what the Las Vagas Police dep is saying.

I think we all know or have read what the Police dept has stated.

Ok. So then we're back to my question.

What reason would the Las Vegas police or whoever have to pretend there is only one shooter?

Ash.J.Williams

I'd say he was wrecked carrying up those guns