Las Vegas Shooting

Dohnjoe · 04-10-2017 1:07pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is also why people believed Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman was able to reload a type of rife that no expert marksman has been able to replicate and how a "magic bullet" defined the laws of physics.

It has been replicated several times. And the "magic bullet" has also been explained.

Back on topic, as Kingmob said, there have been no solid reports or indication of additional shooters involved. Until that happens, then anything that suggests otherwise is a conspiracy theory.

The investigators, police and authorities have access to far more information than amateurs on the internet

King Mob · 04-10-2017 1:08pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That is possible, but then we also have the dispatch, which talked about a possible shooter on the 4th floor.

If true (which I am doubtful of because such things are rarely accurately reported on this forum), then it's not really proof positive of anything. If the cops get reports of a possible shooter, then that's what they are going to pass along.
The operative word is "Possible".

Reports and radio transmissions during a crisis are not always clear and accurate.

So police dispatch talking about reports of a possible second shooter in the heat of the situation does not mean there was a second shooter.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Then you take the footage I have just shown, the person in the car was recording the area of the flashes and said it seems to be coming from up there, points to the area of the flashes then says "Oh sh1t"...

This is your inference from the video and from leading comments of over eager conspiracy theorists.

It's entirely possible that the person filming was actually trying to film something higher up, but couldn't because the car was getting in the way.
It's also possible that the person filming mistakenly believed that the shots were coming from lower down due to the same flashing light.
Note how they don't say anything about their being two shooters in that footage.

Also note how easy it is to toss out possible reasonable explanations.
Yet again, there is no such explanation that supports the idea of a conspiracy.

King Mob · 04-10-2017 1:11pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

It would never truly be in sync light and sound travel at different speeds.
But then you have echo and then you have the fact it was being recorded on a cell phone that is processing video and audio which is not always happening at the same time.

So then the sounds appearing to sync up with the light could just be a coincidence then?
Maybe they aren't in sync at all, and just superficially appear to be because of all of the factors you just listed?

Sexual Chocolate · 04-10-2017 1:11pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Possible, seem to be in sync with the gunfire, still suspicious.
On the back if do you think it should just be ignored?

At the exact same time a guy was hammering a ground with machine gun someone was sitting at the window with a strobe effect on their phone?

I was more thinking the phone being left on a table or window sill ?

If there was a second shooter firing from the 4th or 5th floor why was the window not smashed ?

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 1:36pm

King Mob wrote: »

If true (which I am doubtful of because such things are rarely accurately reported on this forum), then it's not really proof positive of anything. If the cops get reports of a possible shooter, then that's what they are going to pass along.
The operative word is "Possible".

Reports and radio transmissions during a crisis are not always clear and accurate.

So police dispatch talking about reports of a possible second shooter in the heat of the situation does not mean there was a second shooter.

That is true it seems very much at the start nobody could ascertain where it was coming from but to mention the 4th floor on police dispatch suggest that someone or somebody seem to think this was where the shooting was coming from.

It could easily be that this weird flashing fooled a few people. But two different videos from two different angles caught the flashing at the time of the shooting and the police dispatch seems to corroborate the location.

King Mob wrote: »

This is your inference from the video and from leading comments of over eager conspiracy theorists.

It's entirely possible that the person filming was actually trying to film something higher up, but couldn't because the car was getting in the way.
It's also possible that the person filming mistakenly believed that the shots were coming from lower down due to the same flashing light.
Note how they don't say anything about their being two shooters in that footage.

Also note how easy it is to toss out possible reasonable explanations.
Yet again, there is no such explanation that supports the idea of a conspiracy.

Well now you are grasping at straws! This person was fleeing, they did not know where the shooter was they just knew there was shots fired, then all of a sudden they hear shots and point the camera to what they see as flashing lights. It is quite reasonable they at very least thought this to be the source of the fire.

You seem to want to argue against the video and at very least what that person thought they where seeing.

That is not to say it was the shooter, could of been a strobe light, could been a weird reflection but it looks like from the person in the cars perspective it was the origin of the shots.

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 1:43pm

Sexual Chocolate wrote: »

I was more thinking the phone being left on a table or window sill ?

If there was a second shooter firing from the 4th or 5th floor why was the window not smashed ?

Could of been

This is the third video I have seen.
The flashing not constant, it seems to start and stop.

I have no idea around the window not being smashed.

iLikeWaffles · 04-10-2017 2:11pm

Clearly there is a reasonable explanation for the flashes coming from the lower half of the building 40 story building(?) ¼ the way up so around the 10th, or there about, floor. I surmised earlier in post #24 which was a reasonable argument, that has been completely ignored, that it might be the effect of the car moving down the street. But it still does not explain why you don't see any "flash" in either the 4th/10th or 32nd floor in the camera angle that views from the concert itself (poor camera quality or not).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVnNKOKVhx4

This video shows the flash coming from around the 10th floor they are not in sync with the cracking of gunfire which they should be! Light travels faster than sound this is true but they should still be in sync and being out of sync in this case is also out of time with the rate of fire. As you can clearly see from the above video as it is slowed. Which also blows my theory of the car causing the light to flash because of the person recording being stationary. Again though it does not show flashes from gunfire from the 32nd so lets just assume for a moment that there were no flashes from gunfire seen and there is a reasonable explanation for the flashes in the video I posted and the flash in the car which also is in the same location as the video above not the 4th floor!

Could it be possible that the hotel uses the flash to attract the gaze of people passing it. Go to go out but I have a little more to add to this part!

King Mob · 04-10-2017 2:19pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That is true it seems very much at the start nobody could ascertain where it was coming from but to mention the 4th floor on police dispatch suggest that someone or somebody seem to think this was where the shooting was coming from.

It could easily be that this weird flashing fooled a few people. But two different videos from two different angles caught the flashing at the time of the shooting and the police dispatch seems to corroborate the location.

It only corroborates the 4th floor, if what you say is accurate. Which I don't buy. WI haven't heard this police report, so I'd be surprised if it reports what you say. Further, none of the videos you post can confirm that those flashes actually are on the 4th floor.

And besides all of this, the idea that there is a second shooter is still far far more far fetched as an explanation.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well now you are grasping at straws! This person was fleeing, they did not know where the shooter was they just knew there was shots fired, then all of a sudden they hear shots and point the camera to what they see as flashing lights. It is quite reasonable they at very least thought this to be the source of the fire.

And they could have been mistaken. Or my explanation could still hold.

Both are far far more likely than the idea of a second shooter.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That is not to say it was the shooter, could of been a strobe light, could been a weird reflection but it looks like from the person in the cars perspective it was the origin of the shots.

What other explanation is there?

RocketRaccoon · 04-10-2017 2:19pm

Are you people serious? The light flashes are blatantly coming from one of the many millions of flashing bulbs in Vegas.

Now that I am here, I have a question that conspiracy theorists always seem to ignore which is what I expect here. If this is a false flag event, how do you get this many families involved? There are close to 60 people going to be buried soon, are they all actors? Are all their families actors? What about the videos online of people walking through and checking on dead bodies? All actors and make up?

King Mob · 04-10-2017 2:24pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is the third video I have seen.
The flashing not constant, it seems to start and stop.

Different light from a different angle. You see lots of other lights reflected.
Or at that resolution it could be simply be an artifact in the video.

It however seems to show "Muzzle flashes" from an entirely different height and place from the videos you posted. Are there 3 shooters now?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I have no idea around the window not being smashed.

Ok. You can't explain how they weren't broken.
This would indicate that there was no second shooter then.

chewed · 04-10-2017 2:42pm

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Are you people serious? The light flashes are blatantly coming from one of the many millions of flashing bulbs in Vegas.

Now that I am here, I have a question that conspiracy theorists always seem to ignore which is what I expect here. If this is a false flag event, how do you get this many families involved? There are close to 60 people going to be buried soon, are they all actors? Are all their families actors? What about the videos online of people walking through and checking on dead bodies? All actors and make up?

A false flag doesn't necessarily mean there are no deaths! A gunman(men) can still go out and kill people, but the blame is on someone else. e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald!

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 2:45pm

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

Clearly there is a reasonable explanation for the flashes coming from the lower half of the building 40 story building(?) ¼ the way up so around the 10th, or there about, floor. I surmised earlier in post #24 which was a reasonable argument, that has been completely ignored, that it might be the effect of the car moving down the street. But it still does not explain why you don't see any "flash" in either the 4th/10th or 32nd floor in the camera angle that views from the concert itself (poor camera quality or not).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVnNKOKVhx4

This video shows the flash coming from around the 10th floor they are not in sync with the cracking of gunfire which they should be! Light travels faster than sound this is true but they should still be in sync and being out of sync in this case is also out of time with the rate of fire. As you can clearly see from the above video as it is slowed. Which also blows my theory of the car causing the light to flash because of the person recording being stationary. Again though it does not show flashes from gunfire from the 32nd so lets just assume for a moment that there were no flashes from gunfire seen and there is a reasonable explanation for the flashes in the video I posted and the flash in the car which also is in the same location as the video above not the 4th floor!

Could it be possible that the hotel uses the flash to attract the gaze of people passing it. Go to go out but I have a little more to add to this part!

I do not know where the floors start in this hotel 4 floor or 10th are going to be pretty close together from the angle we are seeing but we can agree the bottom third or bottom quarter of the hotel.
The two videos I posted show the flashing lights looks to be roughly the in same area. The flashing as it corresponds to the noise also seems to suggest the two videos are showing the same thing albeit from a different angle.

One appears to be almost underneath the other is almost a side view.
This does not look to be a reflection looks more like the light is coming from the room itself.

Nekarsulm · 04-10-2017 2:47pm

There is a video made by a taxi driver online here. Have a look and you can see a flashing light lower down the hotel facade.
The thing is, its filmed through the driver's door glass, and it's still there after the taxi is driven off around the corner!
A reflection from something either in the car, or on the other side of the street.

MadYaker · 04-10-2017 2:49pm

The exta falshing lights were me lads, I was in there with a big spotlight trying to fool you all. Hammered drunk I was! You know they give you free drink all night? *hic*

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 04-10-2017 2:52pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. You can't explain how they weren't broken.
This would indicate that there was no second shooter then.

Mind bullets dude, mind bullets...

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 2:58pm

King Mob wrote: »

Different light from a different angle. You see lots of other lights reflected.
Or at that resolution it could be simply be an artifact in the video.

It however seems to show "Muzzle flashes" from an entirely different height and place from the videos you posted. Are there 3 shooters now?

Both videos show a flashing light can we agree on that?
Is the source of the light the room? Or is it a reflection?
The first video you cannot see the base of the hotel or the top but we know it is in the bottom third of the screen. The second video shows the same. All we can do here is eyeball it, it looks like the same location. The fact you are trying to argue with that it just stupid!

Does the light flash in both videos seem to correlate to the noise of gun fire? Yes. Is it reasonable to see the flashing image in both videos are capturing the same thing? I think so.

I could be wrong but i looks more like the room is the source of the flashing the reflection idea I think not, simply due to the blinking of both videos being so similar.
And that the source looks like it could be the same location and the fact that there are two complete different angles from the two videos..

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. You can't explain how they weren't broken.
This would indicate that there was no second shooter then.

I do not know they they where not broken, I do not know what kind of windows they have in the hotel.

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 3:05pm

Nekarsulm wrote: »

There is a video made by a taxi driver online here. Have a look and you can see a flashing light lower down the hotel facade.
The thing is, its filmed through the driver's door glass, and it's still there after the taxi is driven off around the corner!
A reflection from something either in the car, or on the other side of the street.

Is this the video with the woman talking?

King Mob · 04-10-2017 3:08pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Both videos show a flashing light can we agree on that?
Is the source of the light the room? Or is it a reflection?

It's most likely a reflection. It could be in the room.
There is no evidence that it is due to muzzle flashes and that explanation makes zero sense.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The first video you cannot see the base of the hotel or the top but we know it is in the bottom third of the screen. The second video shows the same. All we can do here is eyeball it, it looks like the same location. The fact you are trying to argue with that it just stupid!

You can eyeball if you want. It doesn't make it accurate. To me they look like they are in entirely different places. And there is no way to accurately eyeball what floor they are on.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Does the light flash in both videos seem to correlate to the noise of gun fire? Yes.

Extremely superficially. But as you said, many factors make this hard to tell.

We also have video showing the same light continuing without gun fire. You seem to have forgotten that.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Is it reasonable to see the flashing image in both videos are capturing the same thing? I think so.

And even so, they could be simply be capturing the same reflection.

Gunfire does not fit and does not make sense.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I could be wrong but i looks more like the room is the source of the flashing the reflection idea I think not, simply due to the blinking of both videos being so similar.

And that the source looks like it could be the same location and the fact that there are two complete different angles from the two videos..

And this analysis is based on you watching snippets of compressed footage on Youtube captured by camera phones with different settings, angles positions and lighting conditions...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do not know they they where not broken, I do not know what kind of windows they have in the hotel.

The kind that do not open apparently as the real shooter who actually existed had to break them.

There are no other broken windows, so there couldn't have been a second shooter.
How else do you explain the lack of broken windows?

murphthesmurf · 04-10-2017 3:11pm

I honestly can't tell which of you are having a laugh and which are serious.
Can the people joking/being sarcastic put a little asterix or smily face at the end of their posts so the rest of us can tell the jokers from the deranged.
Thanks

DinkyDinosaur · 04-10-2017 3:12pm

The motivation behind this and other shootings isn't to confiscate American's guns.
I think civil war is part of the plan. So taking their guns away wouldn't make sense.
It's a cheap and easy way to destroy your enemies. Bait them into fighting and let them destroy each other.
Look at all the race baiting going on in America right now.
Every division is being exploited for maximum benefit.
Divide and conquer is the game being played remember.
Do you really think guns in the hands of the public would be any match for armoured vehicles if the shtf and martial law was declared?

I think the real reason for all these shootings is as a pretext to detain people. They could easily convince the public that certain people need to be detained for their safety. They'll lock them up in mental institutions and drug them up to their eyeballs. All under the guise of "helping" them. And it will probably be all the conspiracy theorists who will need this "help".

King Mob · 04-10-2017 3:15pm

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

I think the real reason for all these shootings is as a pretext to detain people. They could easily convince the public that certain people need to be detained for their safety. They'll lock them up in mental institutions and drug them up to their eyeballs. All under the guise of "helping" them. And it will probably be all the conspiracy theorists who will need this "help".

Mm hmm.
That's what they said about the last shooting... and the shooting before that... and the shooting before that... and the shooting before that...

They're going to say it about the next few as well...

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 3:16pm

King Mob wrote: »

It's most likely a reflection. It could be in the room.
There is no evidence that it is due to muzzle flashes and that explanation makes zero sense.

You can eyeball if you want. It doesn't make it accurate. To me they look like they are in entirely different places. And there is no way to accurately eyeball what floor they are on.

Extremely superficially. But as you said, many factors make this hard to tell.

We also have video showing the same light continuing without gun fire. You seem to have forgotten that.

And even so, they could be simply be capturing the same reflection.

Gunfire does not fit and does not make sense.

And this analysis is based on you watching snippets of compressed footage on Youtube captured by camera phones with different settings, angles positions and lighting conditions...

The kind that do not open apparently as the real shooter who actually existed had to break them.

There are no other broken windows, so there couldn't have been a second shooter.
How else do you explain the lack of broken windows?

There is a third video again from a different location trying to find it.

It could be reflection but the blinking on all three videos being so close I cannot see how.

The windows is a good point, I do not know, do any rooms have a balcony? Can any of the lower windows open?

I know some hotels allow the lower floor windows to open.

We can look at it two ways.
Was this a muzzle flash?
Or
What is the origin of the flashing.

Let me put it another way.

If this footage was shown and we did not know where the shooter was, I think we would all agree what we are hearing and seeing was the shooter.

The reason we are not saying that is, the flashing is in a different location to where the gun man was found.

King Mob · 04-10-2017 3:26pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There is a third video again from a different location trying to find it.

If it exists, it's probably going to be a reflection.
Because again: The idea of a second shooter is silly!

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The windows is a good point, I do not know, do any rooms have a balcony? Can any of the lower windows open?

I know some hotels allow the lower floor windows to open.

You keep asking these nitpicking questions, yet ignore the glaring issues about the idea of a second shooter.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

We can look at it two ways.
Was this a muzzle flash?
Or
What is the origin of the flashing.

It's a reflection. It can't be muzzle flashes.
The idea of a second shooter is not plausible and it is silly to suggest.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If this footage was shown and we did not know where the shooter was, I think we would all agree what we are hearing and seeing was the shooter.The reason we are not saying that is, the flashing is in a different location to where the gun man was found.

But all of the other evidence shows that it is not where the shooter was and there is no evidence at all that shows there is a second shooter.
And again, the idea of a second shooter doesn't make sense!

Do you think the idea of a second shooter is plausible?
Do you think it is more plausible than the mundane explanations?
How do you explain the problems with that if you do?

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 3:46pm

King Mob wrote: »

If it exists, it's probably going to be a reflection.
Because again: The idea of a second shooter is silly!

No again you are being silly, you keep jumping to the second shooter as if this somehow supports your reflection idea. It does not.

We know there is a flashing light. Is it coming from the room or is it a reflection?

You do understand how reflection works?
If i am looking at a reflection from the front of the building and you are standing at the left of the building we should not be able to see the same reflection if the windows are flat and pointing the the same direction.

I have given two video's but you doubt the third?
Even with the two, it looks more likely the source of the light is coming from the room in my opinion does not look like a reflection.

The first video would suggest for it to be a reflection the light is coming from above or the window is tilted downwards. If that was the case then how it is also reflecting the light to the right for the second video.

King Mob wrote: »

You keep asking these nitpicking questions, yet ignore the glaring issues about the idea of a second shooter.

It's a reflection. It can't be muzzle flashes.
The idea of a second shooter is not plausible and it is silly to suggest.

You just make stupid arguments, even if there was no second shooter this does not mean the flashes did not originate in the room? You seem to put.
No shooter = Reflection it does not!

King Mob wrote: »

But all of the other evidence shows that it is not where the shooter was and there is no evidence at all that shows there is a second shooter.
And again, the idea of a second shooter doesn't make sense!

Do you think the idea of a second shooter is plausible?
Do you think it is more plausible than the mundane explanations?
How do you explain the problems with that if you do?

There are a lot of questions around the idea of a second shooter, why is the window not broken is the biggest.

But the easiest way to rule this out would be to find the origin of the flashes.
Your argument around the reflection is one idea but the way you make the argument is not valid.

I could argue it was a strobe effect on a phone coming from inside the room but you think reflection? Why?

King Mob · 04-10-2017 3:51pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No again you are being silly, you keep jumping to the second shooter as if this somehow supports your reflection idea. It does not.

Ok, so can we rule out the idea that there was a second shooter?
Do you think that is a viable possibility?

DinkyDinosaur · 04-10-2017 3:52pm

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm.
That's what they said about the last shooting... and the shooting before that... and the shooting before that... and the shooting before that...

They're going to say it about the next few as well...

Some people are good at pattern recognition. And some people are not.

Those who can see the pattern sound crazy to those who can't see it.

Time will tell all.

King Mob · 04-10-2017 3:55pm

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

Some people are good at pattern recognition. And some people are not.

Those who can see the pattern sound crazy to those who can't see it.

Time will tell all.

So why were the people who claim exactly the same thing about the other shootings wrong, but this time you are right?

murphthesmurf · 04-10-2017 3:55pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Let me put it another way.

If this footage was shown and we did not know where the shooter was, I think we would all agree what we are hearing and seeing was the shooter.

The reason we are not saying that is, the flashing is in a different location to where the gun man was found.

We might have suspected that, not knowing any better. Until that is the SWAT team raided the correct room where all the noise was coming from and where the hotel security gaurd was shot.
All this bull about flashing lights, it was a music concert ffs, of course there were lots of flashing lights. Whats more, it was a music concert in Vegas, an entire city full of nothing much else but flashing lights!
The nonsense that some of you are putting out that this is a conspiracy to take Americans guns off of them is mind blowing. If the massacre of primary school children didn't put people off guns then nothing will. If there is any 'secret government' conspiracy types it is the gun lobby, they have a LOT of power in the US and a LOT of money. Any restrictions on gun sales and they would not be happy.

Dohnjoe · 04-10-2017 3:56pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There are a lot of questions around the idea of a second shooter

There are none. The authorities, police and media have no evidence or reason to believe there were more shooters.

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 4:03pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so can we rule out the idea that there was a second shooter?
Do you think that is a viable possibility?

No cannot rule it out, I am not part of the investigation team nor was I there.
Neither where you.

If the window is not broken and if the window cannot be opened it would suggest that gunfire could not of come from within the room.

Could the flashing had anything to do with the incident? Perhaps
Does it look like it was muzzle fire at the expect same time the shot where popping off? Yes it does.

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 4:08pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There are none. The authorities, police and media have no evidence or reason to believe there were more shooters.

If you are going to quote me at least use the full sentence

"There are a lot of questions around the idea of a second shooter, why is the window not broken is the biggest."

It is one thing to have an argument for or against but to misrepresent people just makes you disingenuous.

Questions or holes in the theory of the second shooter.

So there are no questions in the idea?

Dohnjoe · 04-10-2017 4:08pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No cannot rule it out, I am not part of the investigation team nor was I there.
Neither where you.

The investigation team is there - they do not suspect more shooters, so yes it can effectively be ruled out at the moment

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 4:11pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The investigation team is there - they do not suspect more shooters, so yes it can effectively be ruled out at the moment

You do not know what they suspect.

Dohnjoe · 04-10-2017 4:12pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You do not know what they suspect.

We do, they believe he was the lone shooter, which they have repeatedly stated.

King Mob · 04-10-2017 4:16pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No cannot rule it out, I am not part of the investigation team nor was I there.
Neither where you.

And the investigation team concluded there was only one shooter.
So end of the discussion then?
Or would you like to suggest a conspiracy of some sort?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If the window is not broken and if the window cannot be opened it would suggest that gunfire could not of come from within the room.

Plus also the fact that the investigation team concluded there was no other shooter. And the lack of any other evidence of any other shooter...
And the fact that a second shooter is a silly notion.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Could the flashing had anything to do with the incident? Perhaps
Does it look like it was muzzle fire at the expect same time the shot where popping off? Yes it does.

Know what else it looks exactly like?
Flashing light reflected in the window.
Know what they have tons of in Vegas?
Flashing lights.

So which is more likely, a flashing light reflected in the window, or a second gun man that the authorities make no mention of anywhere for some mysterious reason?

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 4:17pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We do, they believe he was the lone shooter, which they have repeatedly stated.

We know the statement that was made nothing to their actual investigation.

King Mob · 04-10-2017 4:21pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

We know the statement that was made nothing to their actual investigation.

Lol, what are you suggesting with this exactly?
They stated that there was only one shooter, but really they believe there was actually two?
Why would they do this?

See how we are back to the silliness you have to resort to?

DinkyDinosaur · 04-10-2017 4:23pm

King Mob wrote: »

So why were the people who claim exactly the same thing about the other shootings wrong, but this time you are right?

You're not an authority on that.

One pattern I have noticed on this forum is that yourself King Mob, and DohnJoe appear in the same discussions refuting any questions anyone has about these conspiracies.
Coincidence?
You both seem to be very sure that nothing strange is going on. Do ye have some inside information the rest of us don't have?

And it's not normal to study the details of these attacks and come to the conclusion that nothing strange is going on.
Because clearly something very strange is going on. One or two strange anomalies can be chalked up to coincidence, but a chain of anomalies, one after the other, can not possibly be a mere coincidence.

Clearly something is going on. And it is detrimental to humanity to get in the way of us figuring out the truth by calling people silly conspiracy theorists, shutting down discussions and making people doubt their sanity.

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 4:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

And the investigation team concluded there was only one shooter.
So end of the discussion then?
Or would you like to suggest a conspiracy of some sort?

You think this investigation has been concluded?

King Mob wrote: »

Plus also the fact that the investigation team concluded there was no other shooter. And the lack of any other evidence of any other shooter...
And the fact that a second shooter is a silly notion.

Again you think the in's and out of this investigation will be presented to the public? We do not know all the evidence that has been gather and still is being gathered.

King Mob wrote: »

Know what else it looks exactly like?
Flashing light reflected in the window.
Know what they have tons of in Vegas?
Flashing lights.

So which is more likely, a flashing light reflected in the window, or a second gun man that the authorities make no mention of anywhere for some mysterious reason?

If this looks like a reflection then I would say it looks like a reflection, but it looks like it comes from inside the room it also looks very like the origin of the shooting, just so happens it is not.
Could it be continence? Yes i!
But I would not completely dismiss it? No.
By your reasoning no investigation would be done on any case, we found out guy! Let not look at anything more!

King Mob · 04-10-2017 4:26pm

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

You're not an authority on that.

I kind of am. But you can see for yourself by looking back through this forum.
For every mass shooting people claim that it's going to be start of martial law etc...

They are always wrong.

And given how you've ignored my question and jumped to personal accusations, I think this claim is no different.

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 4:31pm

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, what are you suggesting with this exactly?
They stated that there was only one shooter, but really they believe there was actually two?
Why would they do this?

See how we are back to the silliness you have to resort to?

No the silly part is that you are trying to take the press statement and pass this off as the entire investigation as if somehow you know exactly what is going on.
You do not. Even if they had the suspicion he had an accomplice do you think they would release that information?

King Mob · 04-10-2017 4:33pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You think this investigation has been concluded?
Again you think the in's and out of this investigation will be presented to the public? We do not know all the evidence that has been gather and still is being gathered.

Yes. They have stated that they believe that the shooter acted alone.
If you suggesting that they don't actually believe this is the case, then you are suggesting a conspiracy theory.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If this looks like a reflection then I would say it looks like a reflection, but it looks like it comes from inside the room it also looks very like the origin of the shooting, just so happens it is not.

You are concluding it comes from inside the room based on very very very shakey personal assumptions and eyeballing it. You are basing these ideas and assumptions on grainy low res video on youtube.

Is it possible that you might be wrong...?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Could it be continence? Yes i!
But I would not completely dismiss it? No.
By your reasoning no investigation would be done on any case, we found out guy! Let not look at anything more!

If it is explained by mundane things, then there is no reason to believe there is a second shooter.
The investigators have concluded that there is no other shooter.
There is no plausible reason why they would say this if it was not the case.

The only you can entertain the possibility that there is a second shooter is if you are also positing a conspiracy theory.

King Mob · 04-10-2017 4:37pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No the silly part is that you are trying to take the press statement and pass this off as the entire investigation as if somehow you know exactly what is going on.
You do not. Even if they had the suspicion he had an accomplice do you think they would release that information?

Yes! Yes they would! They do exactly that all the time!

They would state that they found a second sniping position. They would announce they are seeking more suspects. They would release information about said suspects as and when they could.

I know this because it is what they do all the time when there are multiple suspects they have not yet captured!
https://www.brantnews.com/news-story/7567316-police-seek-second-suspect-in-six-nations-youth-abduction/
http://fox43.com/2017/09/12/police-seek-second-suspect-involved-in-upper-allen-township-retail-theft/
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/video/category/news/3649472-police-seek-second-suspect-in-conway-shooting/
http://www.ajc.com/news/police-seek-second-suspect-attempted-armed-robbery-nail-salon/oauN8wLmRcb9Z2EJnUQ4KM/

And these are just the first results I got with a 2 second google search.

They do not say that they believe there is only one shooter when there are actually more. That does not happen.

This is just a bizarre claim...

DoctaDee · 04-10-2017 4:38pm

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

DinkyDinosaur · 04-10-2017 4:42pm

King Mob wrote: »

I kind of am. But you can see for yourself by looking back through this forum.
For every mass shooting people claim that it's going to be start of martial law etc...

They are always wrong.

And given how you've ignored my question and jumped to personal accusations, I think this claim is no different.

I said the goal was civil war so confiscating guns wouldn't make any sense. That would just slow down the mutual destruction of American's.

I said the goal was detention of undesirable people. That's not the same thing as martial law. The plan is a long range one. It is the long con. So no-one has been proved wrong and you have not proved yourself to be any kind of authority at all.

In fact there are numerous reports of homeless people going missing and strange goings on during the hurricanes.

King Mob · 04-10-2017 4:46pm

DinkyDinosaur wrote: »

I said the goal was detention of undesirable people. That's not the same thing as martial law. The plan is a long range one. It is the long con. So no-one has been proved wrong and you have not proved yourself to be any kind of authority at all.

Yes, they have claimed this too. You're not really showing how you are right... or explaining how all those other people got it wrong... or addressing much of anything...

But I'm sure that the martial law and stuff is just around the corner... and time will tell etc...

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 4:46pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. They have stated that they believe that the shooter acted alone.
If you suggesting that they don't actually believe this is the case, then you are suggesting a conspiracy theory.

Tell you what, go get a dictionary and look up the word "believe".
They could "believe" he acted alone and he could still of had an accomplice.
The reason they use the world "believe" is just in case they are wrong or that evidence suggests otherwise.

King Mob wrote: »

You are concluding it comes from inside the room based on very very very shakey personal assumptions and eyeballing it. You are basing these ideas and assumptions on grainy low res video on youtube.

Is it possible that you might be wrong...?

You keep misusing words.
I have not concluded anything, I am saying it looks like the flashing comes from inside the room, if i had to hazard a guess between the source of the light being a reflection or from inside the room my money would be inside the room. Because of the two videos from the two different angles.

King Mob wrote: »

If it is explained by mundane things, then there is no reason to believe there is a second shooter.
The investigators have concluded that there is no other shooter.
There is no plausible reason why they would say this if it was not the case.

The only you can entertain the possibility that there is a second shooter is if you are also positing a conspiracy theory.

Again, the investigators I guarantee have not concluded anything yet, they will have what there evidence currently show them.

DinkyDinosaur · 04-10-2017 4:52pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, they have claimed this too. You're not really showing how you are right... or explaining how all those other people got it wrong... or addressing much of anything...

But I'm sure that the martial law and stuff is just around the corner... and time will tell etc...

You are not an authority on the subject. It's arrogant for you to say so. You don't know for a fact that they are wrong.

King Mob · 04-10-2017 4:56pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Tell you what, go get a dictionary and look up the word "believe".
They could "believe" he acted alone and he could still of had an accomplice.
The reason they use the world "believe" is just in case they are wrong or that evidence suggests otherwise.

Again, the investigators I guarantee have not concluded anything yet, they will have what there evidence currently show them.

And this is just getting pedantic and silly.
If they believed there was a possibility or more gun men, that's what they would have said by now.
If there was evidence of more gun men, they would have found it by now.

When they say that they believe he acted alone, that's what they mean.
If they didn't believe that, and it wasn't what they were going on, that's not what they would have said.

You were the one who deemed them the only ones who could say anything authoritive about the investigation.
But now you are trying to weasel out of that because it shuts down your pet idea.

The authorities do not think there is another gun man.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You keep misusing words.
I have not concluded anything, I am saying it looks like the flashing comes from inside the room, if i had to hazard a guess between the source of the light being a reflection or from inside the room my money would be inside the room. Because of the two videos from the two different angles.

Cool. Based on armchair investigation of grainy youtube footage.
Forgive me if I don't take your analysis as fact.

So it can be a reflection or it can be something mundane inside the room.

Which is more likely, those explanations, or a second shooter that the authorities have not mentioned?

We also see footage of a light blinking without gun fire.
Do you think that might be a clue?

ShowMeTheCash · 04-10-2017 4:56pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes! Yes they would! They do exactly that all the time!

They would state that they found a second sniping position. They would announce they are seeking more suspects. They would release information about said suspects as and when they could.

I know this because it is what they do all the time when there are multiple suspects they have not yet captured!
https://www.brantnews.com/news-story/7567316-police-seek-second-suspect-in-six-nations-youth-abduction/
http://fox43.com/2017/09/12/police-seek-second-suspect-involved-in-upper-allen-township-retail-theft/
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/video/category/news/3649472-police-seek-second-suspect-in-conway-shooting/
http://www.ajc.com/news/police-seek-second-suspect-attempted-armed-robbery-nail-salon/oauN8wLmRcb9Z2EJnUQ4KM/

And these are just the first results I got with a 2 second google search.

They do not say that they believe there is only one shooter when there are actually more. That does not happen.

This is just a bizarre claim...

I do not know if you are being deliberately obtuse or too focused on the argument.

The first link you gave it took nine days for the "Police seek second suspect" from the time it happened.

This investigation is only a few days old and not over....

Las Vegas Shooting

Comments