Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Las Vegas Shooting

Options
1…6791112…14

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    King Mob wrote: »
    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?

    Well if that was an easy question to answer this it would not be much of a conspiracy would it?

    Although a different conspiracy and already mentioned on the thread the JFK assassination many believe could not of been carried out by LHO.. But why would people lie? Usually to hide an alternative agenda.

    Same goes for Pearl Harbor, many believe the US new the attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent and the US government let it happen. They were at very least complicit in causing the conflict.
    Before PH something like 77% of the US people did not want America to enter the war seeing it as a Euro conflict after PH something like 80%+ wanted retribution after the attack on PH .
    The government had their reason to enter the war and even got to drop an Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagaski.

    Do I think this is a conspiracy? At the moment no.

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

    To hide the conspiracy, if there was a second shooter and this was false flag attack then the public would look for justice, who is this second shooter and why have they not been caught?


  • Options
    #243
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Well if that was an easy question to answer this it would not be much of a conspiracy would it?

    ...

    To hide the conspiracy, if there was a second shooter and this was false flag attack then the public would look for justice, who is this second shooter and why have they not been caught?
    But again, we come back to my question that still isn't answered.

    Why would a conspiracy need two shooters?

    The reason you can't answer this is because the notion doesn't make sense.
    Why should anyone consider the possibility of a conspiracy if the premise doesn't make sense from the get go?

    If the idea of a second shooter doesn't fly, what then is there to suggest there is a conspiracy?

    Beyond the reflexive drive to dream up one that is...?


  • Options
    #244
    DinkyDinosaur
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭DinkyDinosaur


    I think the aim is cause as much confusion as possible.

    We have the likes of Alex Jones saying there was more than one shooter. I wouldn't trust anything he says, since he's a shill and works for Warner Bros. Though he does throw out a lot of truth to suck people in, which is what shills and con artists do.

    The mainstream news says it was one shooter.

    It's possible that the machine gun sounds came through the speakers and that there were Mossad agents who shot people.

    Lot's of people claim the shots didn't sound genuine.

    This would cause enough confusion to have everyone fighting about what happened. Divide and conquer.

    Then you have the interviews with eye witnesses on mainstream news channels. They are all so fake. It's ridiculous. One man claims he was shot in the neck, yet there isn't one single mark on him. It's laughable. Here's the video.

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


    I thought at first it was strange that there didn't seem to be any blood or dead bodies. It took a while to find any and video's I've seen look fake, so I was asking myself, did anyone actually die? But I checked out a lot of the victims facebook pages and they do seem to be real people with pages that go back years. Not like the usual fake pages you see with this type of thing. It's so sad.

    So I do think people did actually die. The crisis actors and fake blood could just be a ploy to muddy the waters. I could understand the victims families being upset if people were saying no one died, and this would be the perfect excuse to remove conspiracy video's from Youtube. Which could be one of the goals.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1-IOj1I0GI


  • Options
    #245
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, we come back to my question that still isn't answered.

    Why would a conspiracy need two shooters?

    The reason you can't answer this is because the notion doesn't make sense.
    Why should anyone consider the possibility of a conspiracy if the premise doesn't make sense from the get go?

    If the idea of a second shooter doesn't fly, what then is there to suggest there is a conspiracy?

    Beyond the reflexive drive to dream up one that is...?

    This is where I struggle with your posts, albeit I do not think there was a second shooter I find your reasoning behind the possibility of a second shooter to be unreasonable.

    You say "Why would a conspiracy need two shooters" I find this literally an amazing question without at very least putting a specific conspiracy to the statement.

    Bit like saying "Why would a man need two boats" but with out context it is just a stupid statement.

    But this was already talked about, if this was a conspiracy then we need to assume Paddock was a patsy. If a patsy then there is a question around whether Paddock was indeed the shooter at all or whether there was a second shooter or a third or a fourth.

    Maybe there was a specific target, maybe there was always more than one person involved and Paddock was to take the fall.

    Without a motive it is hard to know why someone would do this.
    But with a motive it is also hard to know the reason for a conspiracy!

    Until you have an actual theory around the conspiracy your question is not a reasonable question.


  • Options
    #246
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    DinkyDinosaur wrote: »
    I think the aim is cause as much confusion as possible.
    Don't believe what Alex Jones tells you, but sometimes he reveals the truth?
    All the eyewitnesses are fake except the ones that aren't.
    All of the people on the news are crisis actors, but they can't keep their story straight and they can't act.
    There is no footage of dead bodies, but there is but it's fake, but their are real victims?
    You can tell which are real victims and which are not by their facebook page because for some reason the conspirators are either unable to create fake profiles and histories... or they are just too lazy...?

    None of this makes any sense. And it's all based on the idea They want to confuse people for some nebulous, unknowable reason...

    And still all they'd actually need to do this is one shooter...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    This is where I struggle with your posts, albeit I do not think there was a second shooter I find your reasoning behind the possibility of a second shooter to be unreasonable.

    You say "Why would a conspiracy need two shooters" I find this literally an amazing question without at very least putting a specific conspiracy to the statement.
    People are putting forward specific conspiracies. They cannot answer the questions either.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    But this was already talked about, if this was a conspiracy then we need to assume Paddock was a patsy. If a patsy then there is a question around whether Paddock was indeed the shooter at all or whether there was a second shooter or a third or a fourth.
    And I also outlined exactly why that idea doesn't make sense and doesn't answer the question either. Please go back and read that post.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Maybe there was a specific target,
    If there was a specific target, then they wouldn't need a big flashy mass shooting. In fact it would be even more difficult to kill someone specific in the middle of such a panicked mess.
    And even still, this could be accomplished with a single shooter. There's no benefit for having two, especially when it gives the game away.

    And on top of that, such an explanation does not match the supposed "evidence".
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    maybe there was always more than one person involved and Paddock was to take the fall.
    I already addressed this. If such a thing were needed for whatever unknown reason, it would be a trivial matter for them to make it appear to be a single shooter.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Without a motive it is hard to know why someone would do this.
    But with a motive it is also hard to know the reason for a conspiracy!
    You could suggest and speculate about possible motives.
    However as I have been explaining, no one can suggest any that actually make any sense. This is because there is no possible motive for them to do it.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Until you have an actual theory around the conspiracy your question is not a reasonable question.
    So then if we have no motive, no evidence and no underlying reason for such a plot: Why entertain the notion there's a conspiracy?
    Isn't it just creative writing at that point?

    Let's get specific:
    The theory that there was no one killed at the event and that everyone were in fact crisis actors.
    Do you think this is possible? Reasonable? Worth considering at all?


  • Options
    #248
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    King Mob wrote: »
    People are putting forward specific conspiracies. They cannot answer the questions either.

    Yes they can and they have, one theory was Paddock was drugged up, another theory is Paddock was not the shooter if indeed a conspiracy.

    In either case Paddock either did not or may not of been able to pull this off.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And I also outlined exactly why that idea doesn't make sense and doesn't answer the question either. Please go back and read that post.

    No you haven't if find your reasons to why they do not make sense even more senseless than some of the crazy conspiracies put forward.
    King Mob wrote: »
    If there was a specific target, then they wouldn't need a big flashy mass shooting. In fact it would be even more difficult to kill someone specific in the middle of such a panicked mess.
    And even still, this could be accomplished with a single shooter. There's no benefit for having two, especially when it gives the game away.

    OK entertain this for a sec.

    1. If there was a specific target, then they wouldn't need a big flashy mass shooting.

    Really how do you know that? If there was a specific target then maybe a mass shooting is exactly they way to hide it, otherwise it would just look like an assignation.

    2. In fact it would be even more difficult to kill someone specific in the middle of such a panicked mess.

    Would it? Who was the first person shot? A skilled marks man could easily of taken their time with the first shot before spraying the crown with bullets.

    3. And even still, this could be accomplished with a single shooter. There's no benefit for having two, especially when it gives the game away.

    This is the part you really seem to fail to understand.
    If this was a conspiracy the fact that Paddock is dead seems to suggest he was a patsy as in someone to take the fall. The reason most conspiracies have a fall guy is so that everyone stops looking.

    If a conspiracy it would make perfect sense there was a second shooter or at very least someone else to do "whatever the motive is" and ensure Paddock is dead at the end of it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And on top of that, such an explanation does not match the supposed "evidence".
    I already addressed this. If such a thing were needed for whatever unknown reason, it would be a trivial matter for them to make it appear to be a single shooter.

    No at this stage there is no evidence there was a second shooter at all, there is nothing to support your reasons to why there is no second shooter.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You could suggest and speculate about possible motives.
    However as I have been explaining, no one can suggest any that actually make any sense. This is because there is no possible motive for them to do it.

    Just because no one has come up with a plausible motive does not mean there is is't one, what was Paddocks motives?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then if we have no motive, no evidence and no underlying reason for such a plot: Why entertain the notion there's a conspiracy?
    Isn't it just creative writing at that point?

    Perhaps but this was not a straight forward as you try and make out.
    Paddock motives are still somewhat of a mystery.
    The sheer volume of people hit was also something that people questioned, considering that Paddock "was not a gun guy".

    He had 10+ guns in the hotel room, this was not something he could of done in a single run, but no one seem to notice.

    It was something that appeared to be very well thought out for a guy with no reason to do this.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Let's get specific:
    The theory that there was no one killed at the event and that everyone were in fact crisis actors.
    Do you think this is possible? Reasonable? Worth considering at all?

    That was on persons theory and I never considered it.

    The flashing light did look suspicious but on closer inspection it does not look like it could of been a second shooter.

    Who Paddock was and why he done this....... ???
    If we could answer this easily then I doubt any conspiracy threads would of been started.


  • Options
    #249
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,744 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    No at this stage there is no evidence there was a second shooter at all, there is nothing to support your reasons to why there is no second shooter.
    Except for the deafening lack of evidence?
    He had 10+ guns in the hotel room, this was not something he could of done in a single run, but no one seem to notice.
    How many people would first floor staff see entering/exiting the hotel on a given day, especially one that contains public amenities like gambling? I could easily see his passings going unnoticed. Plus, if anyone stopped him what's he carrying? Guns! But those are perfectly legal to own, transport and carry in NV and Las Vegas is itself home to quite a few gun shows. Nobody is going to look twice at a guy trying to carry guns in a bag up to his room.
    The flashing light did look suspicious but on closer inspection it does not look like it could of been a second shooter.
    Only if he used phase-shifting bullets that could pass through the unbroken glass on the 4th floor, and not through human flesh.


  • Options
    #250
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

    Who Paddock was and why he done this....... ???
    If we could answer this easily then I doubt any conspiracy threads would of been started.

    The conspiracies (no matter how baseless) would exist regardless. It's a pattern that follows almost every major shooting/attack

    A portion of people are determined to discredit the established version of events in order to promote far-fetched outlandish theories that the event is a "false flag". There's a mini industry built up around it.


  • Options
    #251
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

    He had 10+ guns in the hotel room, this was not something he could of done in a single run, but no one seem to notice.

    According to the investigation it was done in multiple runs (approx 10). No one did notice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Overheal wrote: »
    Except for the deafening lack of evidence?

    This is not the reason the OP is putting forward, the OP is suggesting even if this was a conspiracy why have two shooters? His position being it would not make sense.
    Overheal wrote: »
    How many people would first floor staff see entering/exiting the hotel on a given day, especially one that contains public amenities like gambling? I could easily see his passings going unnoticed. Plus, if anyone stopped him what's he carrying? Guns! But those are perfectly legal to own, transport and carry in NV and Las Vegas is itself home to quite a few gun shows. Nobody is going to look twice at a guy trying to carry guns in a bag up to his room.
    I think you are trying to make the argument fit here, it went unnoticed but you seem to suggest and it should of went unnoticed.

    Casino's have some of the best security cameras and security people going, there sole purpose being to make sure no-one rips off the Casino.

    How much Money do you think a Casino has at any given time in Las Vegas?
    The fact that one guy was able to fill his hotel room with a small arsenal of weapons and ammo is literally amazing.
    Overheal wrote: »
    Only if he used phase-shifting bullets that could pass through the unbroken glass on the 4th floor, and not through human flesh.

    It is easy to make flippant comments about the source of the flashing when you still do not know what the source of the flashing is.....


  • Options
    #253
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    This is where I struggle with your posts, albeit I do not think there was a second shooter I find your reasoning behind the possibility of a second shooter to be unreasonable.

    You say "Why would a conspiracy need two shooters" I find this literally an amazing question without at very least putting a specific conspiracy to the statement.

    Bit like saying "Why would a man need two boats" but with out context it is just a stupid statement.

    But this was already talked about, if this was a conspiracy then we need to assume Paddock was a patsy. If a patsy then there is a question around whether Paddock was indeed the shooter at all or whether there was a second shooter or a third or a fourth.

    Maybe there was a specific target, maybe there was always more than one person involved and Paddock was to take the fall.

    Without a motive it is hard to know why someone would do this.
    But with a motive it is also hard to know the reason for a conspiracy!

    Until you have an actual theory around the conspiracy your question is not a reasonable question.

    Occam Razor applies , stop the nonsense


  • Options
    #254
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Occam Razor applies , stop the nonsense

    I suggest you understand the FULL conversation before stating the obvious.


  • Options
    #255
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,744 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Guys...


  • Options
    #256
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,744 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    This is not the reason the OP is putting forward, the OP is suggesting even if this was a conspiracy why have two shooters? His position being it would not make sense.


    I think you are trying to make the argument fit here, it went unnoticed but you seem to suggest and it should of went unnoticed.

    Casino's have some of the best security cameras and security people going, there sole purpose being to make sure no-one rips off the Casino.
    right they focus on people scamming the games, on the gaming floor, not necessarily dudes in the hotel area carrying luggage to the elevator or to a hotel room.

    It is easy to make flippant comments about the source of the flashing when you still do not know what the source of the flashing is.....
    Of the best suggestions so far it is a strobe light. But it most definitely wasn't a 2nd shooter, as we spent a good minute well establishing.


  • Options
    #257
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,787 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

    Casino's have some of the best security cameras and security people going, there sole purpose being to make sure no-one rips off the Casino.

    How much Money do you think a Casino has at any given time in Las Vegas?
    The fact that one guy was able to fill his hotel room with a small arsenal of weapons and ammo is literally amazing.

    This almost comes across as being absolutely incredulous someone got guns up to a hotel room in a giant complex (one part of which is a casino) but being open to the notion that the whole thing might be some unspecified conspiracy inside job

    Either way, it's very straw-clutching stuff really


  • Options
    #258
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I suggest you understand the FULL conversation before stating the obvious.

    I do , generating conspiracies out of thin air, simply because they might be " logical possible " is nonsense, The simplest solution is usually correct , he's a lone nutter


  • Options
    #259
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    The fact that one guy was able to fill his hotel room with a small arsenal of weapons and ammo is literally amazing.

    He rented the room for 4 days , you can make a lot of trips to a room with a single bag in 4 days !!!!


  • Options
    #260
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I do , generating conspiracies out of thin air, simply because they might be " logical possible " is nonsense, The simplest solution is usually correct , he's a lone nutter

    No really you don't. And again reading the last post and literally stating the obvious is just lazy!

    Myself and the OP agree the evidence suggests this is one guy who went nuts with an arsenal of weaponry. That is not the argument.

    What we where exploring was "if" this was some kind of conspiracy.
    The other OP was suggesting even if a conspiracy then the two shooters would still not make any sense.

    I was stating that without knowing the motive for the conspiracy then you have no way of knowing if multiple shooters would make sense or not.


  • Options
    #261
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    I was stating that without knowing the motive for the conspiracy then you have no way of knowing if multiple shooters would make sense or not.

    Ive read your posts, either you ( one) are(is) describing a purely hypothetical construct , if so then anything is possible however ludicrous.

    If you(one ) are(is) trying to logically construct an argument that justifies a conspiracy based on applying complex and unproved convoluted constructions , then as I said Occam Razor applies.

    Yours is a bit like " we could have bangers and mash if we only we had bangers and mash "


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    Overheal wrote: »
    right they focus on people scamming the games, on the gaming floor, not necessarily dudes in the hotel area carrying luggage to the elevator or to a hotel room.

    I would like to think they also look for people who are going to straight up rob them!

    [/QUOTE]
    Overheal wrote: »
    Of the best suggestions so far it is a strobe light. But it most definitely wasn't a 2nd shooter, as we spent a good minute well establishing.

    Somewhat serendipitous that a strobe light was flashing at exactly the same time as gunfire. At very least it was deserving a closer look.


  • Options
    #263
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Somewhat serendipitous that a strobe light was flashing at exactly the same time as gunfire. At very least it was deserving a closer look.

    serendipitous no, coincidence yes, relevant no,

    was it serendipitous that a seagull had landed on the building during the shooting , sure, thats suggest the gull was armed and did the shooting, lets investigate that


  • Options
    #264
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    BoatMad wrote: »
    serendipitous no, coincidence yes, relevant no,

    was it serendipitous that a seagull had landed on the building during the shooting , sure, thats suggest the gull was armed and did the shooting, lets investigate that

    Only that a strobe light and muzzle flashing might look the same?


  • Options
    #265
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Ive read your posts, either you ( one) are(is) describing a purely hypothetical construct , if so then anything is possible however ludicrous.

    If you(one ) are(is) trying to logically construct an argument that justifies a conspiracy based on applying complex and unproved convoluted constructions , then as I said Occam Razor applies.

    Yours is a bit like " we could have bangers and mash if we only we had bangers and mash "

    You are just lazy, if the above is true would not of been hard to provide an example.

    The issue is, you think you know the arguments I am making, it is clear you do not....


  • Options
    #266
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Only that a strobe light and muzzle flashing might look the same?

    entirely debunked http://www.snopes.com/second-gunman-shoot-fourth-floor-mandalay-bay/

    no broken windows on fourth floor cop radio traffic that identified shooter on the correct floor as the gunfire was going off etc

    that fact is " There just making this stuff up " , thats all

    There no need for conspiracy theories cause there isnt one


  • Options
    #267
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    BoatMad wrote: »
    entirely debunked http://www.snopes.com/second-gunman-shoot-fourth-floor-mandalay-bay/

    no broken windows on fourth floor cop radio traffic that identified shooter on the correct floor as the gunfire was going off etc

    that fact is " There just making this stuff up " , thats all

    There no need for conspiracy theories cause there isnt one

    I can read, we are in agreement the flashing light could not of been gun fire, we established this literally last week.

    It is easy to weigh in a week later, but at the time of some of these videos we did not know a lot of what we know now.


  • Options
    #268
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I can read, we are in agreement the flashing light could not of been gun fire, we established this literally last week.

    It is easy to weigh in a week later, but at the time of some of these videos we did not know a lot of what we know now.

    sorry you miss my point. I only referenced that in desperation to your last post

    There is no need for a conspiracy , Occam Razor generally applies, the simplest solution is actually the correct one .

    Nor is anything gained or changed by a conspiracy , the people are dead, largely due to the bizarre gun laws in the US and the culture of " the gun "

    This debate is like drunks in a bar discussing astrophysics


  • Options
    #269
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    BoatMad wrote: »
    sorry you miss my point. I only referenced that in desperation to your last post

    There is no need for a conspiracy , Occam Razor generally applies, the simplest solution is actually the correct one .

    Nor is anything gained or changed by a conspiracy , the people are dead, largely due to the bizarre gun laws in the US and the culture of " the gun "

    This debate is like drunks in a bar discussing astrophysics

    It's a conspiracy forum what do you expect.

    Originally when I saw the videos of the lights from the room it was literally the day after it happened. If someone was to tell me here is a video my assumption would of been that must be Paddocks room.

    By the following day after analysis it was shown no other windows had been smashed and the windows could not be opened which leaves some other explanation one of which we do not really know. Strobe light, weird reflection etc....


  • Options
    #270
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    BoatMad wrote: »
    sorry you miss my point. I only referenced that in desperation to your last post

    There is no need for a conspiracy , Occam Razor generally applies, the simplest solution is actually the correct one .

    Nor is anything gained or changed by a conspiracy , the people are dead, largely due to the bizarre gun laws in the US and the culture of " the gun "

    This debate is like drunks in a bar discussing astrophysics

    My arguments where really against the logic used to try and debunk the second shooter idea. If there was a hypothetical conspiracy. After all this is a conspiracy forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Yes they can and they have, one theory was Paddock was drugged up, another theory is Paddock was not the shooter if indeed a conspiracy.

    In either case Paddock either did not or may not of been able to pull this off.

    No you haven't if find your reasons to why they do not make sense even more senseless than some of the crazy conspiracies put forward.
    Well you're welcome to explain the problems with my points. If you think they don't make sense, please demonstrate this.
    I'm not going to just take your word for it.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    OK entertain this for a sec.

    Really how do you know that? If there was a specific target then maybe a mass shooting is exactly they way to hide it, otherwise it would just look like an assignation.
    There is literally dozens of ways to assassinate someone without a mass shooting. Poison, car crash, fake mugging...
    A mass shooting is a terrible idea as first, it draws attention to the incident. Second it seems that if you use a second shooter, you expose the fact there is something going on, therefore negating the point of a fake shooting in the first place.
    This is a terrible, nonsensical motive.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Would it? Who was the first person shot? A skilled marks man could easily of taken their time with the first shot before spraying the crown with bullets.
    So why not just have him do that first from the same room as Paddock? Why not just have that guy do all the shooting while having Paddock already there, dead and ready to take the fall?
    Why not just use a competent gun man?
    Why go to the bother of setting up the entire thing just to use an unneeded second gunner from a second position when it just exposes the conspiracy?

    Also, as I have explained, if this were the explanation, then it doesn't fit any of the supposed "evidence".
    If there was a second, highly skilled gun man who's taking out only one target before the real shooting starts: what evidence is there for this?
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    This is the part you really seem to fail to understand.
    If this was a conspiracy the fact that Paddock is dead seems to suggest he was a patsy as in someone to take the fall. The reason most conspiracies have a fall guy is so that everyone stops looking.
    Yes, and my points account for that. Please read them before dismissing them.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    If a conspiracy it would make perfect sense there was a second shooter or at very least someone else to do "whatever the motive is" and ensure Paddock is dead at the end of it.
    But it doesn't make perfect sense as noone is able to provide any good reasons why they would use more than one shooter!

    Even if they need to hit a certain target and for some reason Paddock is unable to do this (both, massive, silly assumptions that don't make sense in themselves) then all they need to do is just have a second person in the same room doing the shooting.
    Having that person in a different position shooting at a different time offers no benefit at all.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    No at this stage there is no evidence there was a second shooter at all, there is nothing to support your reasons to why there is no second shooter.
    The fact there is no evidence and there is no sensible alternative narrative support the fact there was no second shooter.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Just because no one has come up with a plausible motive does not mean there is is't one, what was Paddocks motives?
    That's why am asking for people to explain the motives. To suggest anything that doesn't fall apart with two seconds of critical thought.
    No one has provided one.
    No one has provided one for any of the last few shootings where the exact same kind of stuff is claimed.

    No one has provided one because they can't provide one.
    Because the idea of a conspiracy theory around this doesn't make any sense. It's a fantasy. It's creative writing in bad taste on the same level as suggesting that he was being controlled by aliens.
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Perhaps but this was not a straight forward as you try and make out.
    Paddock motives are still somewhat of a mystery.
    The sheer volume of people hit was also something that people questioned, considering that Paddock "was not a gun guy".

    He had 10+ guns in the hotel room, this was not something he could of done in a single run, but no one seem to notice.

    It was something that appeared to be very well thought out for a guy with no reason to do this.
    So how are these things explained by a conspiracy?
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    That was on persons theory and I never considered it.
    You've dodged the question.
    Is the idea plausible? Reasonable? Worth considering?


Advertisement