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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Las Vegas Shooting

1235789

Comments

  • #202
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • #203
    DinkyDinosaur
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭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...............


  • #204
    DinkyDinosaur
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭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


  • #205
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭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?)


  • #206
    DinkyDinosaur
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭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?


  • #207
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #208
    murphthesmurf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 737 ✭✭✭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.


  • #209
    iLikeWaffles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭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.


  • #210
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    iLikeWaffles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭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?


  • #212
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #213
    iLikeWaffles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭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?????


  • #214
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #215
    iLikeWaffles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭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.


  • #216
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


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


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,384 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #218
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #219
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭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


  • #220
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #221
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,574 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    weisses wrote: »
    A credible blue source please stating there was no second shooter

    What do you consider credible?


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    yourdeadwright
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,938 ✭✭✭✭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,


  • #223
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #224
    jh79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭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?


  • #225
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #226
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,357 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #227
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,357 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #228
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #229
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭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


  • #230
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭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.”


  • #231
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,574 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭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


  • #233
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭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


  • #234
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,574 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    weisses wrote: »
    Help could also mean .. a second shooter

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


  • #235
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,357 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #236
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭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


  • #237
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,357 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #238
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #239
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭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."


  • #240
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,322 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    I'd say he was wrecked carrying up those guns


  • #242
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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?


  • #243
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭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...?


  • #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


  • #245
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #246
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #247
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #248
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #249
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #250
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,357 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #251
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,357 ✭✭✭✭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
Advertisement