Las Vegas Shooting

Overheal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

Somewhat ironically, he didn't rob them at all...

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

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

No you haven't if find your reasons to why they do not make sense even more senseless than some of the crazy conspiracies put forward.

Well you're welcome to explain the problems with my points. If you think they don't make sense, please demonstrate this.
I'm not going to just take your word for it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK entertain this for a sec.

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

There is literally dozens of ways to assassinate someone without a mass shooting. Poison, car crash, fake mugging...
A mass shooting is a terrible idea as first, it draws attention to the incident. Second it seems that if you use a second shooter, you expose the fact there is something going on, therefore negating the point of a fake shooting in the first place.
This is a terrible, nonsensical motive.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

So why not just have him do that first from the same room as Paddock? Why not just have that guy do all the shooting while having Paddock already there, dead and ready to take the fall?
Why not just use a competent gun man?
Why go to the bother of setting up the entire thing just to use an unneeded second gunner from a second position when it just exposes the conspiracy?

Also, as I have explained, if this were the explanation, then it doesn't fit any of the supposed "evidence".
If there was a second, highly skilled gun man who's taking out only one target before the real shooting starts: what evidence is there for this?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

Yes, and my points account for that. Please read them before dismissing them.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If a conspiracy it would make perfect sense there was a second shooter or at very least someone else to do "whatever the motive is" and ensure Paddock is dead at the end of it.

But it doesn't make perfect sense as noone is able to provide any good reasons why they would use more than one shooter!

Even if they need to hit a certain target and for some reason Paddock is unable to do this (both, massive, silly assumptions that don't make sense in themselves) then all they need to do is just have a second person in the same room doing the shooting.
Having that person in a different position shooting at a different time offers no benefit at all.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No at this stage there is no evidence there was a second shooter at all, there is nothing to support your reasons to why there is no second shooter.

The fact there is no evidence and there is no sensible alternative narrative support the fact there was no second shooter.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Just because no one has come up with a plausible motive does not mean there is is't one, what was Paddocks motives?

That's why am asking for people to explain the motives. To suggest anything that doesn't fall apart with two seconds of critical thought.
No one has provided one.
No one has provided one for any of the last few shootings where the exact same kind of stuff is claimed.

No one has provided one because they can't provide one.
Because the idea of a conspiracy theory around this doesn't make any sense. It's a fantasy. It's creative writing in bad taste on the same level as suggesting that he was being controlled by aliens.  

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

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

It was something that appeared to be very well thought out for a guy with no reason to do this.

So how are these things explained by a conspiracy?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That was on persons theory and I never considered it.

You've dodged the question.
Is the idea plausible? Reasonable? Worth considering?

Going in ciricles here.
On one hand someone could come up with a good conspiricy theory or a complete crazy one.
What you seem to be doing is enterining a non-defined conspiricy then trying to aruge aginst a second shooter in said non-defined conspiricy.
Without at least outlining a defined conspiricy and motives to said conspiricy your argument is thus moot! Completely pointless. I would consinder your reasoning as far fetched and lacking "critical thought" as some of the hair brained conspiricies put forward.
To answer the question, no the idea that people laying about where actors and no one died is think is ridiculous.

ShowMeTheCash

Overheal wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

Somewhat ironically, he didn't rob them at all...

Not sure why that would be ironic?
I think the main insentive not to rob Casino's is the implication of Mob involvment with Casino's.
I think perhaps the idea being no one would be that stupid......
I read somewhere he had in total 22 Guns in the hotel room. But sure this is America having 22 guns in a hotel room is par for the course.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Going in ciricles here.
On one hand someone could come up with a good conspiricy theory or a complete crazy one.
What you seem to be doing is enterining a non-defined conspiricy then trying to aruge aginst a second shooter in said non-defined conspiricy.
Without at least outlining a defined conspiricy and motives to said conspiricy your argument is thus moot! Completely pointless. I would consinder your reasoning as far fetched and lacking "critical thought" as some of the hair brained conspiricies put forward.

No, I'm trying to in a straight line, it's you and conspiracy theories who are dancing around the issue.
I don't have to define the conspiracy because any conspiracy that relies on the idea of two shooters fails on the outset. This is because it wouldn't make sense for any such conspiracy to use two shooters.
There is no plausible scenario or motive where the supposed benefit of two shooters out weighs the cost or the drawbacks of using one. And/Or the scenarios relies on silly assumptions that make the entire thing not make sense at all.
Like for instance the idea you put forward that they might have been targeting someone specific. This is not benefited by having more than one shooter and can be easily accomplished by one shooter. And it is also based on the idea that a mass shooting is somehow the best way to cover up a murder, which is obviously silly. It is doubly silly when you combine it with the fact that a second shooter exposes said plot.
All the other examples provided fall into the same problem.
All the other claims and suggested conspiracies about other events fall into the same problem.
They all rely on over-complicated conspiracies

If some Shadowy They wanted to fake a mass shooting, then the easiest, cheapest, most covert way to do this is:
1. Pick a patsy and kill him
2. Bring him to the spot needed.
3. Have a trained shooter do the killing.
4. Have him escape before the cops arrive while leaving the patsy behind in a seemingly fake suicide.
(This assumes that the need a patsy and are unable to find or manipulate a willing subject. Which are big flimsy assumptions)

The only problem with this explanation and the only reason this isn't the conspiracy being suggested is because it doesn't leave big obvious pieces of evidence for keyboard detectives to find and post about.

If there weren't two shooters, what is there that suggests a conspiracy is even feasibly possible?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

To answer the question, no the idea that people laying about where actors and no one died is think is ridiculous.

Why do you think it is ridiculous?
Why is it more ridiculous than there being two shooters?

BoatMad

That's why am asking for people to explain the motives. To suggest anything that doesn't fall apart with two seconds of critical thought.
No one has provided one.
No one has provided one for any of the last few shootings where the exact same kind of stuff is claimed.

No one has provided one because they can't provide one.
Because the idea of a conspiracy theory around this doesn't make any sense. It's a fantasy. It's creative writing in bad taste on the same level as suggesting that he was being controlled by aliens.

+1

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Going in ciricles here.
On one hand someone could come up with a good conspiricy theory or a complete crazy one.
What you seem to be doing is enterining a non-defined conspiricy then trying to aruge aginst a second shooter in said non-defined conspiricy.
Without at least outlining a defined conspiricy and motives to said conspiricy your argument is thus moot! Completely pointless. I would consinder your reasoning as far fetched and lacking "critical thought" as some of the hair brained conspiricies put forward.

No, I'm trying to in a straight line, it's you and conspiracy theories who are dancing around the issue.
I don't have to define the conspiracy because any conspiracy that relies on the idea of two shooters fails on the outset. This is because it wouldn't make sense for any such conspiracy to use two shooters.
There is no plausible scenario or motive where the supposed benefit of two shooters out weighs the cost or the drawbacks of using one. And/Or the scenarios relies on silly assumptions that make the entire thing not make sense at all.
Like for instance the idea you put forward that they might have been targeting someone specific. This is not benefited by having more than one shooter and can be easily accomplished by one shooter. And it is also based on the idea that a mass shooting is somehow the best way to cover up a murder, which is obviously silly. It is doubly silly when you combine it with the fact that a second shooter exposes said plot.
All the other examples provided fall into the same problem.
All the other claims and suggested conspiracies about other events fall into the same problem.
They all rely on over-complicated conspiracies

If some Shadowy They wanted to fake a mass shooting, then the easiest, cheapest, most covert way to do this is:
1. Pick a patsy and kill him
2. Bring him to the spot needed.
3. Have a trained shooter do the killing.
4. Have him escape before the cops arrive while leaving the patsy behind in a seemingly fake suicide.
(This assumes that the need a patsy and are unable to find or manipulate a willing subject. Which are big flimsy assumptions)

The only problem with this explanation and the only reason this isn't the conspiracy being suggested is because it doesn't leave big obvious pieces of evidence for keyboard detectives to find and post about.

If there weren't two shooters, what is there that suggests a conspiracy is even feasibly possible?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

To answer the question, no the idea that people laying about where actors and no one died is think is ridiculous.

Why do you think it is ridiculous?
Why is it more ridiculous than there being two shooters?

any conspiracy that relies on the idea of two shooters fails on the outset.
Ridiculous statement.
This is because it wouldn't make sense for any such conspiracy to use two shooters.
Ridiculous statement.
You keep saying it could of been accomplished by one shooter, two shooters do not make sense.....
You say this without really knowing what the goal was. Even if not a conspiricy we still do not know the motive to why Paddock done this.
If a conspiricy and one shooter then that would suggest Paddock was in on the conspiricy.
If Paddock is in on the conspiricy there is now a direct connect to the conspiricy.
If Paddock was in on the conspiricy then it would also mean he was willing to die to keed the conspiricy concealed.
Conspiricy theories like this usually end up with the perp being dead at the end of it, feeds into the conspiricy.
When I look at the reasons you give above, I could apply the same logic to the JFK assassination theories.
If your response to the idea of a second gunman or multiple gunmen in the JFK assassination is "any conspiracy that relies on the idea of two shooters fails on the outset" or "because it wouldn't make sense for any such conspiracy to use two shooters" I would find an extremmly weak argument.
You are talking about keyboard detetives but you are trying to dissprove theoretical ideas with theoritical ideas.
One guy, 22 guns 50+ dead 489 wonded mass panic. Possible second shooter as a viable possibility? Or that actors lay around pretending to be dead....
Yes it is more ridicluous than two shooters, and if you think they are equally ridiculous then you trying to hard to win the argument that you are losing any credible objectivity.

Mousewar

King Mob wrote: »

any conspiracy that relies on the idea of two shooters fails on the outset. This is because it wouldn't make sense for any such conspiracy to use two shooters.
There is no plausible scenario or motive where the supposed benefit of two shooters out weighs the cost or the drawbacks of using one. And/Or the scenarios relies on silly assumptions that make the entire thing not make sense at all.

You keep repeating this like it's inherently and obviously true. It's not. It mightn't make sense to you but, without suggesting that it is what actually happened, the idea of a second shooter is logically sound (if not convincing). You might prefer your corpse idea and you're welcome to pick holes in the second shooter idea but stop dismissing it out of hand as intrinsically nonsensical (it may very be nonsensical for other reasons).
There's an obvious reason why having a live patsy actually firing would be beneficial to the 'shadowy powers that be" (while the real shooter is elsewhere doing most of the actual killing) - to put it simply: it makes it far easier to pin it on the patsy as it would be impossible to prove he wasn't there that day shooting at the crowd because, well, he was. No chance of a stray cctv camera picking up men delivering a corpse to a room for example. And hell, they could even produce footage of him shooting from the room if need be.

I'm sorry but it's just ridiculous that you keep stating that no one has answered this simple question as if you're put forward some brilliant piece of analysis that has stumped everyone. I'm not suggesting the drugged patsy and second shooter theory is real but it's perfectly plausible in the world of conspiracy - certainly as much as your corpse fantasy.

DinkyDinosaur

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

There's a pattern of people saying "false flag" because there is a pattern of things that don't add up.

Granted some people are strange and handle grief by smiling, but they are in the minority. In these shootings 90% of the victims are smiling. Those odds don't correlate with reality. And THAT is one reason there is a pattern of people saying "flase flag".

There are plenty of shootings that happen every day where NO ONE claims them to be a false flag. And that is because there isn't anything suspiscious about those shootings.

Joshua J

So it appears those who believed the offical version of the events were, as per, sold a tissue of lies. What else are the authorites lying about?.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story,amp.html

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Ridiculous statement.

Ridiculous statement.

So you keep insisting, but you don't actually show why.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You keep saying it could of been accomplished by one shooter, two shooters do not make sense.....
You say this without really knowing what the goal was.

Care to suggest some goals that are plausible and make a second gunman a benefit?

If you can't provide even speculation of such goals, then there's my point.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

One guy, 22 guns 50+ dead 489 wonded mass panic. Possible second shooter as a viable possibility?

You've also yet to show how one guy cannot or is unlikely to be able to cause that amount of damage.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Yes it is more ridicluous than two shooters, and if you think they are equally ridiculous then you trying to hard to win the argument that you are losing any credible objectivity.

Yes, one is more ridiculous than the other. My point is that you likely reject the idea of fake victims for the same reason I reject the idea of a second shooter.

So why is it ridiculous?
Perhaps that it's over-complicated and nonsensical and there isn't any possible benefit in doing it that way?

King Mob

Mousewar wrote: »

You keep repeating this like it's inherently and obviously true. It's not. It mightn't make sense to you but, without suggesting that it is what actually happened, the idea of a second shooter is logically sound (if not convincing). You might prefer your corpse idea and you're welcome to pick holes in the second shooter idea but stop dismissing it out of hand as intrinsically nonsensical (it may very be nonsensical for other reasons).

But I've explained why it is intrinsically nonsensical even in the hypotheticals that have been provided.
It is always easier, simpler and safer for the conspiracy to use only one shooter.
The only way to justify the idea of it to tack on more and more assumptions that contradict each other and make it even more ridiculous.

Mousewar wrote: »

There's an obvious reason why having a live patsy actually firing would be beneficial to the 'shadowy powers that be" (while the real shooter is elsewhere doing most of the actual killing) - to put it simply: it makes it far easier to pin it on the patsy as it would be impossible to prove he wasn't there that day shooting at the crowd because, well, he was.

But this assumes that they have to use a patsy. Why not simply hire a guy to do it? Why not find a guy already predisposed to do it and giving him help and a push? Why not mind altering drugs?

Even leaving these aside, why would they need to then fire from two positions? Why not just the one and have the guy who is going to do the shooting inside the room with the patsy?

Mousewar wrote: »

No chance of a stray cctv camera picking up men delivering a corpse to a room for example. And hell, they could even produce footage of him shooting from the room if need be.

But at the same time, they are now running the extra risk of having the second shooter be caught on CCTV or by footage of him shooting.
(Which apparently is what conspiracy theorists believe happened)
Why would they trade one risk for an even more dangerous risk?

Why would they worry about being caught smuggling a corpse some where but not a ton of guns to two separate locations? Or the person leaving the room after killing the pasty? Or all the extra shooters milling around?

Honestly, smuggling a corpse under the nose of CCTV seems like the easy part.

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm sorry but it's just ridiculous that you keep stating that no one has answered this simple question as if you're put forward some brilliant piece of analysis that has stumped everyone.

No one has produced a reasonable, viable explanation for why they would need two shooters. Remember I am just picking out the shooter example. There are many other points claimed by conspiracy theorists that fall into the same trap.

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm not suggesting the drugged patsy and second shooter theory is real but it's perfectly plausible in the world of conspiracy - certainly as much as your corpse fantasy.

Where are you getting the idea that it's my fantasy?
There's lot of conspiracy theorists out there claiming exactly that for this event and others. You can see examples of this on this very forum...

Mousewar

King Mob wrote: »

No one has produced a reasonable, viable explanation for why they would need two shooters..

They have. You just don't like them.
I'd just be repeating myself if I tackled anything else you said so I'll leave it there.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Ridiculous statement.

Ridiculous statement.

So you keep insisting, but you don't actually show why.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You keep saying it could of been accomplished by one shooter, two shooters do not make sense.....
You say this without really knowing what the goal was.

Care to suggest some goals that are plausible and make a second gunman a benefit?

If you can't provide even speculation of such goals, then there's my point.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

One guy, 22 guns 50+ dead 489 wonded mass panic. Possible second shooter as a viable possibility?

You've also yet to show how one guy cannot or is unlikely to be able to cause that amount of damage.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Yes it is more ridicluous than two shooters, and if you think they are equally ridiculous then you trying to hard to win the argument that you are losing any credible objectivity.

Yes, one is more ridiculous than the other. My point is that you likely reject the idea of fake victims for the same reason I reject the idea of a second shooter.

So why is it ridiculous?
Perhaps that it's over-complicated and nonsensical and there isn't any possible benefit in doing it that way?

I do not have a convincing conspircy or even a plausible one, I am simply suggesting your rebuttals to be even more nonsensical than some of the conspiricies put forward.

Also I do not need to show that one guy could not do this, you are the one saying two shooters make no sense. I am saying two shooters could easily make sense. I think basic mathmatics can demonstrate two people would of been more effetive than 1.
So you are rejecting the idea of a second shooter for the same reasons to reject fake dead people, then you wonder why I think it ridiculous?

PokeHerKing

Joshua J wrote:

So it appears those who believed the offical version of the events were, as per, sold a tissue of lies. What else are the authorites lying about?.

Tissue of lies....?

The police are correcting their own original account of events. I don't see much conspiracy in that. It would have been a completely chaotic event, obviously not everything got relayed 100% during or in the immediate aftermath.

Cops/doctors/government officials are only human, some errors are bound to happen. Not correcting them would be a cover-up/conspiracy.

Conspiracies used to have some credibility. Since the advent of the internet the word has lost all meaning.

King Mob

Mousewar wrote: »

They have. You just don't like them.
I'd just be repeating myself if I tackled anything else you said so I'll leave it there.

I've explained why the scenario you have suggested doesn't hold up. I went into a lot of detail.

If you think my points are wrong, then explain how.

Otherwise, I'm going to stand by my statment:
No one can provide a viable reasonable explanation as to why they need two shooters.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do not have a convincing conspircy or even a plausible one,

Why not? Is it impossible to make one up or something?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am simply suggesting your rebuttals to be even more nonsensical than some of the conspiricies put forward.

Great. Demonstrate this, don't just announce it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also I do not need to show that one guy could not do this, you are the one saying two shooters make no sense. I am saying two shooters could easily make sense. I think basic mathmatics can demonstrate two people would of been more effetive than 1.

But again and this is the point you are missing:
Two shooters increase the risk of being caught and exposing the conspiracy.
Do you disagree with this point?

And even then, if they absolutely wanted or needed two shooters for some unknown reason, why then not just have two patsies and make the official story be that there were two shooters?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So you are rejecting the idea of a second shooter for the same reasons to reject fake dead people, then you wonder why I think it ridiculous?

I am rejecting the idea of a second shooter because first, there's no evidence for such. And secondly it requires a needlessly complex conspiracy for no apparent benefit and it would unnecessarily increase the risk of the conspiracy being exposed.

I reject the idea of faked victims for the exact same reason with the addition that faked victims are an order of magnitude more needlessly complex.

Why do you reject the idea of faked victims if not for these reasons?

Dohnjoe

Mousewar wrote: »

They have. You just don't like them.
I'd just be repeating myself if I tackled anything else you said so I'll leave it there.

The notion of a "second shooter" arose from some flashing lights that someone speculated might be secondary muzzle flashes. That's since been explained.

Now posters here are engaging in a creative writing exercise to try and insert a "second shooter" theory into the narrative

No one can plausibly explain why

If they were assassinating someone - why go to all this bizarre trouble

If they wanted to kill all those people - just use one person

Why would a "secret" second or third or forth shooter be needed?


It also begs the question - with no evidence why are people randomly speculating about a second shooter, why not a third or forth shooter?

It makes as much sense as the second shooter (i.e. none)

While we're on to completely made-up stuff, why not speculate that everyone was an actor - why? because it has as much evidence as the second shooter theory (i.e. none)

DinkyDinosaur

If they were assassinating someone - why go to all this bizarre trouble

Cos they're weirdo's. lol.

Mousewar

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It also begs the question - with no evidence why are people randomly speculating about a second shooter, why not a third or forth shooter?

It makes as much sense as the second shooter (i.e. none)

The second shooter is a necessary assumption based on the idea that the known shooter is a patsy who didn't actually commit some or all of the atrocity. A third or fourth shooter isn't necessary to this idea although it's entirely possible of course.
It has echos, I suppose of the Kennedy assassination where theorists argued that it was impossible for LHO to have shot Kennedy from his location so therefore a second shooter was required.

Dohnjoe

Mousewar wrote: »

The second shooter is a necessary assumption based on the idea that the known shooter is a patsy who didn't actually commit some or all of the atrocity.

There's no evidence the shooter is a "patsy".

There is no evidence that the shooter didn't commit all/some of the atrocity.

So, as mentioned, we are deep into the realms of make-believe here.. and if we are in fairy land, why not a third or fourth shooter?

The notion of a third shooter adds as much value to the situation as the notion of a second shooter

It's an arbitrary number.

There's as much logic/evidence to using a third shooter as there is to using a second shooter.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do not have a convincing conspircy or even a plausible one,

Why not? Is it impossible to make one up or something?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am simply suggesting your rebuttals to be even more nonsensical than some of the conspiricies put forward.

Great. Demonstrate this, don't just announce it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also I do not need to show that one guy could not do this, you are the one saying two shooters make no sense. I am saying two shooters could easily make sense. I think basic mathmatics can demonstrate two people would of been more effetive than 1.

But again and this is the point you are missing:
Two shooters increase the risk of being caught and exposing the conspiracy.
Do you disagree with this point?

And even then, if they absolutely wanted or needed two shooters for some unknown reason, why then not just have two patsies and make the official story be that there were two shooters?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So you are rejecting the idea of a second shooter for the same reasons to reject fake dead people, then you wonder why I think it ridiculous?

I am rejecting the idea of a second shooter because first, there's no evidence for such. And secondly it requires a needlessly complex conspiracy for no apparent benefit and it would unnecessarily increase the risk of the conspiracy being exposed.

I reject the idea of faked victims for the exact same reason with the addition that faked victims are an order of magnitude more needlessly complex.

Why do you reject the idea of faked victims if not for these reasons?

Why not? Is it impossible to make one up or something? - This is stupid question... I am not in the habit of making stuff.
Two shooters increase the risk of being caught and exposing the conspiracy. - According to you! So if this was the work of just one shooter then it is not a conspiricy it's just some nut job with a lot of guns, you have manged create an almost paradoxical statement that literally means nothing. A conspiricy's if true are usually the work of a particular body, government, corporation but ultimately a body of people not a single individual. The reason a patsy gets used in any conspiricy is to kill any link to the "body" of people. To ensure the patsy takes the fall it would make much more sense to have more than one shooter.

I am rejecting the idea of a second shooter because first, there's no evidence for such.  - This is fine and I agrre
And secondly it requires a needlessly complex conspiracy for no apparent benefit and it would unnecessarily increase the risk of the conspiracy being exposed. - This is stupid and I disagree.

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Mousewar wrote: »

They have. You just don't like them.
I'd just be repeating myself if I tackled anything else you said so I'll leave it there.

The notion of a "second shooter" arose from some flashing lights that someone speculated might be secondary muzzle flashes. That's since been explained.

Now posters here are engaging in a creative writing exercise to try and insert a "second shooter" theory into the narrative

No one can plausibly explain why

If they were assassinating someone - why go to all this bizarre trouble

If they wanted to kill all those people - just use one person

Why would a "secret" second or third or forth shooter be needed?


It also begs the question - with no evidence why are people randomly speculating about a second shooter, why not a third or forth shooter?

It makes as much sense as the second shooter (i.e. none)

While we're on to completely made-up stuff, why not speculate that everyone was an actor - why? because it has as much evidence as the second shooter theory (i.e. none)

Literally no one is doing this.

Mousewar

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's no evidence the shooter is a "patsy".

There is no evidence that the shooter didn't commit all/some of the atrocity.

So, as mentioned, we are deep into the realms of make-believe here.. and if we are in fairy land, why not a third or fourth shooter?

The notion of a third shooter adds as much value to the situation as the notion of a second shooter

It's an arbitrary number.

There's as much logic/evidence to using a third shooter as there is to using a second shooter.

We're not really discussing hard evidence here but the logic of scenarios.
A second shooter is necessary for Paddock being a patsy. A third or fourth shooter isn't necessary.
I'm not supporting any of these theories. I just think the dismissive tone of some of these posts are a bit much.
Why not three or four shooters? Why not an orangutan in a mankini firing from the bellagio fountain?

None of these theories will be proved wrong by clever analytical argument on here but only by the evidence as it emerges.

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Mousewar wrote: »

The second shooter is a necessary assumption based on the idea that the known shooter is a patsy who didn't actually commit some or all of the atrocity.

There's no evidence the shooter is a "patsy".

There is no evidence that the shooter didn't commit all/some of the atrocity.

So, as mentioned, we are deep into the realms of make-believe here.. and if we are in fairy land, why not a third or fourth shooter?

The notion of a third shooter adds as much value to the situation as the notion of a second shooter

It's an arbitrary number.

There's as much logic/evidence to using a third shooter as there is to using a second shooter.

Again you really seem to not understand this conversaiton.
No one is suggesting it is a conpiricy, the OP is arguing the case well let's say it was a conspriciy and then trying to argue even in the event of it being a conspriciy the two shooter idea still does not add up.

Overheal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

More info out today, the investigators have indicated in at least 200 instances they found (presumably through CCTV) that Paddock was moving around Las Vegas, alone.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/10/10/shooter-shot-guard-fired-concert-goers/

Not sure why that would be ironic?

Because if the purpose of the camera was to protect the assets of the hotel, they did their job: he did not try to rob them, so the security system worked as intended.

King Mob wrote: »

No, I'm trying to in a straight line, it's you and conspiracy theories who are dancing around the issue.
I don't have to define the conspiracy because any conspiracy that relies on the idea of two shooters fails on the outset. This is because it wouldn't make sense for any such conspiracy to use two shooters.

....

To be perfectly fair, personal incredulity and the fallacy fallacy seem to be at play in your line of argument. I'm personally thinking of any of a number of Rick and Morty episodes where the characters will go "that could never possibly happen" and then either after the credits or hidden within the scene, the thing is happening. #Multiverse

While it's fair to argue that there's no clear motivation for requiring a 2nd shooter to conduct this attack, I think it's unfair to make the blanket claim that any theory that includes a 2nd shooter is automatically invalid. You make some valid points, but they are covered in erroneous blanket statements that are muddying the conversation, imho.

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again you really seem to not understand this conversaiton.
No one is suggesting it is a conpiricy, the OP is arguing the case well let's say it was a conspriciy and then trying to argue even in the event of it being a conspriciy the two shooter idea still does not add up.

I had to delete a message there, so we're agreed we're beyond the evidence part

My point is that the "second shooter" does not make sense either

If "they" (some shadowy nefarious outfit) wanted to kill one person, it would make no sense to do it like this and draw the attention of the world on themselves

Therefore we have to move onto the notion they want to kill a lot of people. For that the best, least risky course of action is to have one overt shooter set up correctly and shot all those people

Adding a "secret" second shooter does not add to the situation. It only adds risk of being caught, risk of exposure, adds complexity. It make no sense to add that element to the situation

(As grim as this is to discuss) One man, with that weaponry, in that position, at that distance with that crowd can do X amount of damage.

- there is no reason they need a second "secret" or third "secret" shooter. They don't add anything to the equation but .. bodycount (sorry again)

If for some bizarre reason they purely want bodycount, they just add a second patsy. Same as the first guy. His brother, whoever.

At no point to these nefarious powers-that-be want to make their own job more risky or difficult

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again you really seem to not understand this conversaiton.
No one is suggesting it is a conpiricy, the OP is arguing the case well let's say it was a conspriciy and then trying to argue even in the event of it being a conspriciy the two shooter idea still does not add up.

I had to delete a message there, so we're agreed we're beyond the evidence part

My point is that the "second shooter" does not make sense either

If "they" (some shadowy nefarious outfit) wanted to kill one person, it would make no sense to do it like this and draw the attention of the world on themselves

Therefore we have to move onto the notion they want to kill a lot of people. For that the best, least risky course of action is to have one overt shooter set up correctly and shot all those people

Adding a "secret" second shooter does not add to the situation. It only adds risk of being caught, risk of exposure, adds complexity. It make no sense to add that element to the situation

(As grim as this is to discuss) One man, with that weaponry, in that position, at that distance with that crowd can do X amount of damage.

- there is no reason they need a second "secret" or third "secret" shooter. They don't add anything to the equation but .. bodycount (sorry again)

If for some bizarre reason they purely want bodycount, they just add a second patsy. Same as the first guy. His brother, whoever.

At no point to these nefarious powers-that-be want to make their own job more risky or difficult

You seem to not understand the idea around a patsy!
The patsy really is for the public, if the pasty is dead the justice has been served.
If Paddock escaped then there would be a man hunt, if Paddock was captured and was part of a conspriciy then his co-conspiritors may now also be implicated. 
A dead man tells to tales.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

To be perfectly fair, personal incredulity and the fallacy fallacy seem to be at play in your line of argument. I'm personally thinking of any of a number of Rick and Morty episodes where the characters will go "that could never possibly happen" and then either after the credits or hidden within the scene, the thing is happening. #Multiverse

While it's fair to argue that there's no clear motivation for requiring a 2nd shooter to conduct this attack, I think it's unfair to make the blanket claim that any theory that includes a 2nd shooter is automatically invalid. You make some valid points, but they are covered in erroneous blanket statements that are muddying the conversation, imho.

I'm totally open to the idea that there is some reason for a second shooter, I'm just not seeing it and no one seems to be able to provide it.
Experience tells me that no one will because it's like all of the other claims made by conspiracy theories, like the notion that there were no victims.

my original point is that until such an explanation can be provided, then the conspiracy will not make any sense as a single shooter/real victims will always be a better explanation.

The real, and only reason a second shooter is even suggested is because it provides evidence for a conspiracy.

King Mob

Mousewar wrote: »

We're not really discussing hard evidence here but the logic of scenarios.
A second shooter is necessary for Paddock being a patsy. A third or fourth shooter isn't necessary.

But a second shooter isn't necessary either.

Again, assuming that they need an unwilling patsy, wouldn't it be easier to have a marksman just shoot from the same room that the patsy is in?
what benefit is having a second position away from where the patsy is?

Overheal

Divide the police response.

They did respond to other reports of gunfire but I get the feeling that was all from echoing.