Las Vegas Shooting

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is stupid question... I am not in the habit of making stuff.

So you can't provide an explanation for it. No one can because there isn't one that works.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

According to you!

No, according to basic logic.
If you have two shooters, then there is two sources of gun fire from two locations, therefore you are giving away the fact there are two shooters thus exposing the conspiracy.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is stupid and I disagree.

Ok, so why do you reject the idea of fake victims? Please be specific beyond "it's stupid".

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

Divide the police response.

But why would they need to divide the police response? I thought the point of a patsy is to have him be caught? And if then did need to do this for whatever reason, why not just have two patsys?

Also, how would they prevent the police from spoiling the conspiracy and exposing there was a second shooter, ie via radio chatter during the event etc.?
It can't be that they have the police in their pocket as that would negate the first premise that then need to divide the police response...

Again, the explanation doesn't hold that much water...

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

I understand what a patsy is - they either have to be paid or coerced (we'll leave mind control stuff aside)

Can't pay someone to do that (obviously)

So the only option is coercion (e.g. threaten his family) in which case he either escapes (a second shooter doesn't help this), shoots himself (a second shooter doesn't help this), or carries out the act and shoots himself (a second shooter doesn't help this)

At no point does a second shooter "enhance" this situation - it only further complicates it and adds risk

And we always get to the reason why - the only reason people can give is "gun control". Democrats and Republicans conspire to pass gun control. Far easier than a treasonous and overly complex plan to murder 60 Americans under the scrutiny of the world.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is stupid question... I am not in the habit of making stuff.

So you can't provide an explanation for it. No one can because there isn't one that works.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

According to you!

No, according to basic logic.
If you have two shooters, then there is two sources of gun fire from two locations, therefore you are giving away the fact there are two shooters thus exposing the conspiracy.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is stupid and I disagree.

Ok, so why do you reject the idea of fake victims? Please be specific beyond "it's stupid".

You fail at understanding how CT work. A CT if good is not about making stuff up off the top of your head.
It usually begins with certain things not adding up for example the flashing light on the 10th floor.
In the end the window was not smashed and the timing of the flashes seemed to be off, so we move past it.
If however the window turned out to be broken and the flashing was in sync with the shots it would made the second shooter idea more viable.
A good CT is when we look at actual evidence and find descrpencies, not doing as you are suggesting to make one up, it is stupid!
You keep saying basic logic, a number of people have pointed out you are not using basic logic, just by saying basic logic you are trying to draw certanties into a hypotherical. Your "logic" is a kin to that of the guy that makes stuff up only you are on the other end of the specturm trying to disprove things with the same bad logic.
The fake victim is stupid because there is literally tons of evidence showing it happen, there is one video we you hear someone say they are hit, there is one guy that describes a woman getting hit in the face.
The footage of the concert is hugh.
What footage do we have of Paddock? Even from the footage of peopls phones there is a lot of confusion from wher the shots originate.
I should not even have to explain this it is got beyond ridculous.

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

I understand what a patsy is - they either have to be paid or coerced (we'll leave mind control stuff aside)

Can't pay someone to do that (obviously)

So the only option is coercion (e.g. threaten his family) in which case he either escapes (a second shooter doesn't help this), shoots himself (a second shooter doesn't help this), or carries out the act and shoots himself (a second shooter doesn't help this)

At no point does a second shooter "enhance" this situation - it only further complicates it and adds risk

And we always get to the reason why - the only reason people can give is "gun control". Democrats and Republicans conspire to pass gun control. Far easier than a treasonous and overly complex plan to murder 60 Americans under the scrutiny of the world.

hey either have to be paid or coerced - What? You abviously don't or have a very narrow view on what you think it is.
A patsy is someone who takes the fall that is it, they do not need to be paid or coerced, a patsy may not even know they are involved in something until it is too late. Wrong place wrong time!
CIA used to do things like this all the time, recurit people to do dodgy stuff, then deny any involvement hang them out to dry or have them killed off and say they acted alone.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You fail at understanding out CT work.
A CT if good is not about making stuff up off the top of your head.
It usually begins with certain things not adding up for example the flashing light on the 10th floor.

No, I understand how conspiracy theories work.
The conclusion that it is a conspiracy is made first. Evidence is collected after that. And any evidence against the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy, and the fact the conspiracy doesn't make sense is only a minor issue that isn't important.

So yes, it is basic logic.
If you have more than one shooter, you increase the risk of getting caught.
There is no benefit to having a second shooter.

Therefore they wouldn't use a second shooter.

I'm open to seeing a benefit of a second shooter, but so far no one can provide even a hypothetical suggestion of what that might be.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The fake victim is stupid because there is literally tons of evidence showing it happen, there is one video we you hear someone say they are hit, there is one guy that descripes a woman getting hit in the face.
The footage of the convert is hugh.

Conspiracy theorists claim that all of this evidence is faked.

Are you saying that it's impossible to fake all of this evidence? Is it impossible to get someone to pretend to be hit or pretend to have seen a person be hit?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I should not even have to explain this it is got beyond ridculous.

Again, I am getting you to explain it because all the arguments you will make against it will equally apply to the idea of a second shooter.

For example ALL of the evidence indicated that there is only one shooter.

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You fail at understanding out CT work.
A CT if good is not about making stuff up off the top of your head.
It usually begins with certain things not adding up for example the flashing light on the 10th floor.

No, I understand how conspiracy theories work.
The conclusion that it is a conspiracy is made first. Evidence is collected after that. And any evidence against the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy, and the fact the conspiracy doesn't make sense is only a minor issue that isn't important.

So yes, it is basic logic.
If you have more than one shooter, you increase the risk of getting caught.
There is no benefit to having a second shooter.

Therefore they wouldn't use a second shooter.

I'm open to seeing a benefit of a second shooter, but so far no one can provide even a hypothetical suggestion of what that might be.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The fake victim is stupid because there is literally tons of evidence showing it happen, there is one video we you hear someone say they are hit, there is one guy that descripes a woman getting hit in the face.
The footage of the convert is hugh.

Conspiracy theorists claim that all of this evidence is faked.

Are you saying that it's impossible to fake all of this evidence? Is it impossible to get someone to pretend to be hit or pretend to have seen a person be hit?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I should not even have to explain this it is got beyond ridculous.

Again, I am getting you to explain it because all the arguments you will make against it will equally apply to the idea of a second shooter.

For example ALL of the evidence indicated that there is only one shooter.

OK I am going to give you an example of how stupid this argument is.
22 guns all the ammo was way too risky for one guy to attempt he must of had help.It would make more sense if this was a team effort increases chances of success and reduces the risk of getting caught. One lone shooter does not make sense!

Your statements are as about as vacuous as the statement I just made. Lacks anything tangible just noise that in your own head seems to make some kind of sense.

As for Conspiricy Theorists - You make broad stroke statements that again are nonsense, what conspiricy theorists? Some people claim the moon landing was faked some claim the moon is a death star filled by lizard people. Not all Conspiricy Theroys are wrong some through out history have proven to be true. You seem to be someone who wants to operate on the extremes but refuses to come into the middle where more reasonable people operate.

As for the second shooter - Let me clear as you seem to be waffling and almost changing the qustion. There is not nearly as much tangible evidence around the second shooter there is no video footage of the shooter, there is no video footage of the raid on the shooter the evidence we have is what the Police Dept released after the event.

jh79

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You fail at understanding how CT work. A CT if good is not about making stuff up off the top of your head.
It usually begins with certain things not adding up for example the flashing light on the 10th floor.
In the end the window was not smashed and the timing of the flashes seemed to be off, so we move past it.
If however the window turned out to be broken and the flashing was in sync with the shots it would made the second shooter idea more viable.
A good CT is when we look at actual evidence and find descrpencies, not doing as you are suggesting to make one up, it is stupid!..........................

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

As for Conspiricy Theorists - You make broad stroke statements that again are nonsense, what conspiricy theorists? Some people claim the moon landing was faked some claim the moon is a death star filled by lizard people. Not all Conspiricy Theroys are wrong some through out history have proven to be true. You seem to be someone who wants to operate on the extremes but refuses to come into the middle where more reasonable people operate.

What you are describing is known as anomaly hunting and it is certainly not the middle ground where reasonable people operate. It is explained in the following blog;

"One of the most common and insidious bits of cognitive self-deception is the process of anomaly hunting"

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/

Overheal

jh79 wrote: »

What you are describing is known as anomaly hunting and it is certainly not the middle ground where reasonable people operate. It is explained in the following blog;

"One of the most common and insidious bits of cognitive self-deception is the process of anomaly hunting"

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/

That was a great read. Bookmarking that.

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK I am going to give you an example of how stupid this argument is.
22 guns all the ammo was way too risky for one guy to attempt he must of had help.It would make more sense if this was a team effort increases chances of success and reduces the risk of getting caught. One lone shooter does not make sense!

Your statements are as about as vacuous as the statement I just made. Lacks anything tangible just noise that in your own head seems to make some kind of sense.

But it must apparently be a single shooter, as there was a shooting and there is plenty of evidence that there one only one shooter.

What evidence is there that there was more than one shooter? None.
You comparison doesn't make sense.

Further it doesn't make sense as I can posit rational, reasonable possibilities for a motivation and a benefit for him to use so many guns. He wanted to shoot as many people as he could.

No one has been able to provide such a motavation for why conspirators would need or want two shooters.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

As for Conspiricy Theorists - You make broad stroke statements that again are nonsense, what conspiricy theorists? Some people claim the moon landing was faked some claim the moon is a death star filled by lizard people. Not all Conspiricy Theroys are wrong some through out history have proven to be true.

We have an example of someone claiming exactly that in this thread.
We have numerous examples of people claiming equally silly things about other events in the forum's history.
I can point to the Conspiracy Theory Media that will be solely promoting the crisis actor idea.

You are in the minority with your position.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You seem to be someone who wants to operate on the extremes but refuses to come into the middle where more reasonable people operate.

Suggesting that the government faked the shooting or that they are covering something up is not a reasonable middle ground. It already is on the extreme fringe and it relies on the same fallacies and logical holes the "extreme" conspiracies use. The only difference is a matter of scale.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

As for the second shooter - Let me clear as you seem to be waffling and almost changing the qustion. There is not nearly as much tangible evidence around the second shooter there is no video footage of the shooter, there is no video footage of the raid on the shooter the evidence we have is what the Police Dept released after the event.

You're dodging the question. It's not a trick question and it's very simple:
Without resorting to hyperbolic insults, explain why you reject the crisis actor explanation as impossible.

There is evidence of who the shooter was. There is evidence that there is only one.
You seem to be fine with dismissing this evidence as possibly fake or unconvincing.

There's lots of evidence that people died. Conspiracy theorists also dismiss this evidence as possibly fake.
The evidence you pointed to as convincing amounts to some pictures and testimony from two anonymous witnesses.

Why can you dismiss the evidence of who the shooter was, but conspiracy theorists aren't allow to dismiss your evidence?

ShowMeTheCash

jh79 wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You fail at understanding how CT work. A CT if good is not about making stuff up off the top of your head.
It usually begins with certain things not adding up for example the flashing light on the 10th floor.
In the end the window was not smashed and the timing of the flashes seemed to be off, so we move past it.
If however the window turned out to be broken and the flashing was in sync with the shots it would made the second shooter idea more viable.
A good CT is when we look at actual evidence and find descrpencies, not doing as you are suggesting to make one up, it is stupid!..........................

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

As for Conspiricy Theorists - You make broad stroke statements that again are nonsense, what conspiricy theorists? Some people claim the moon landing was faked some claim the moon is a death star filled by lizard people. Not all Conspiricy Theroys are wrong some through out history have proven to be true. You seem to be someone who wants to operate on the extremes but refuses to come into the middle where more reasonable people operate.

What you are describing is known as anomaly hunting and it is certainly not the middle ground where reasonable people operate.  It is explained in the following blog;

"One of the most common and insidious bits of cognitive self-deception is the process of anomaly hunting"

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/

I feel like I am reapting myself.
Yes we are annomoly hunting but the sole purpose of particular dicussion is "let's assume there is a conspiricy" no one is really arguing there is a conspiricy. But for argument sake let's assume there is one albeit undefined. The OP clims then even in the event of conspiricy the idea of a second shooter would still make no sense.
But this conversation is literally spun off into a place a complete nonsense!

ShowMeTheCash

King Mob wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK I am going to give you an example of how stupid this argument is.
22 guns all the ammo was way too risky for one guy to attempt he must of had help.It would make more sense if this was a team effort increases chances of success and reduces the risk of getting caught. One lone shooter does not make sense!

Your statements are as about as vacuous as the statement I just made. Lacks anything tangible just noise that in your own head seems to make some kind of sense.

But it must apparently be a single shooter, as there was a shooting and there is plenty of evidence that there one only one shooter.

What evidence is there that there was more than one shooter? None.
You comparison doesn't make sense.

Further it doesn't make sense as I can posit rational, reasonable possibilities for a motivation and a benefit for him to use so many guns. He wanted to shoot as many people as he could.

No one has been able to provide such a motavation for why conspirators would need or want two shooters.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

As for Conspiricy Theorists - You make broad stroke statements that again are nonsense, what conspiricy theorists? Some people claim the moon landing was faked some claim the moon is a death star filled by lizard people. Not all Conspiricy Theroys are wrong some through out history have proven to be true.

We have an example of someone claiming exactly that in this thread.
We have numerous examples of people claiming equally silly things about other events in the forum's history.
I can point to the Conspiracy Theory Media that will be solely promoting the crisis actor idea.

You are in the minority with your position.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You seem to be someone who wants to operate on the extremes but refuses to come into the middle where more reasonable people operate.

Suggesting that the government faked the shooting or that they are covering something up is not a reasonable middle ground. It already is on the extreme fringe and it relies on the same fallacies and logical holes the "extreme" conspiracies use. The only difference is a matter of scale.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

As for the second shooter - Let me clear as you seem to be waffling and almost changing the qustion. There is not nearly as much tangible evidence around the second shooter there is no video footage of the shooter, there is no video footage of the raid on the shooter the evidence we have is what the Police Dept released after the event.

You're dodging the question. It's not a trick question and it's very simple:
Without resorting to hyperbolic insults, explain why you reject the crisis actor explanation as impossible.

There is evidence of who the shooter was. There is evidence that there is only one.
You seem to be fine with dismissing this evidence as possibly fake or unconvincing.

There's lots of evidence that people died. Conspiracy theorists also dismiss this evidence as possibly fake.
The evidence you pointed to as convincing amounts to some pictures and testimony from two anonymous witnesses.

Why can you dismiss the evidence of who the shooter was, but conspiracy theorists aren't allow to dismiss your evidence?

I am not going through this all again it literally is a waste of time, you keep moving the goalposts.
I have already agreed that when it comes to actual evidence, the evidence suggests that there was one shooter.
Where I have dissagreed with you is when you start going down these rabit holes of conjecture like "It would not make any sense fot two shooters in case one of them got caught...." Then try and pass this off as some kind of intelectual stance around "basic logic". It's not, it is no more than a thought you have with literally no basis.
You also keep trying to misrepresent what I say, I never said the crisis actor theory was impossible I said it was ridiclious.
Reason I think it riciculous was the speed in which it happened, the sheer anormity of pulling something like that off and the number of people at the concert.....

King Mob

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Where I have dissagreed with you is when you start going down these rabit holes of conjecture like "It would not make any sense fot two shooters in case one of them got caught...." Then try and pass this off as some kind of intelectual stance around "basic logic". It's not, it is no more than a thought you have with literally no basis.

You are either misunderstanding my point or your are deliberately misrepresenting me.

Yes I am speculating and arguing hypothetically. I've been very clear on that nor have I stated or implied otherwise.

My argument is not just "It would not make any sense fot two shooters in case one of them got caught...."
My argument is that first: no one has provided a reasonable, consistent explanation as to why conspirators might want to use more than one shooter. (Or otherwise cover up a second shooter)
If you think some one has done this, point it out.

Second I argue that no one can provide such an explanation because:
1. There is nothing about the shooting that cannot have been done with a single shooter. If they want it to look like it was a single shooter, then the best, easiest and safest way is to use a single shooter.
2. That by having a second shooter shooting from a second position, they would expose the fact there where two shooters This is because it would be obvious that there were two shooters, as people would hear two different sources, there would be footage and pictures of the two shooters etc...

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You also keep trying to misrepresent what I say, I never said the crisis actor theory was impossible I said it was ridiclious.

Not really sure what the difference is there...

If the crisis actor idea is possible, why didn't the conspirators use that then?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Reason I think it riciculous was the speed in which it happened, the sheer anormity of pulling something like that off and the number of people at the concert.....

Again, this just is an argument of scale. To entertain the possibility of a second shooter you must then also assume that it is reasonable for the entirety of the Las Vegas Police force being involved from the start, as you would need at least them to cover up and contain the evidence of a second shooter. For instance you would need them to fake the radio chatter that shows only one shooter as well as keep the chatter from exposing that there were two shooters.

Again, every argument you use against the "ridiculous" conspiracy can be used against the "reasonable" one.

Overheal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I feel like I am reapting myself.
Yes we are annomoly hunting but the sole purpose of particular dicussion is "let's assume there is a conspiricy" no one is really arguing there is a conspiricy. But for argument sake let's assume there is one albeit undefined. The OP clims then even in the event of conspiricy the idea of a second shooter would still make no sense.
But this conversation is literally spun off into a place a complete nonsense!

We do not necessarily need to perpetuate this discussion just because we are in the venue of a CT forum. If the members agree that there is likely no conspiracy here (and that seems clear from the somewhat vapid argument about the 2nd shooter being the only overarching line of conversation here) then the conversation can simply die off...

Is there *no* benefit to a second shooter? Absolutely not, in the abstract: if a primary shooter fails to get a target, a secondary shooter picks up.

In this case though the target was a crowd and it was indiscriminate, and the idea of accomplices is one of the first things law enforcement began looking for on the night of, and they have clearly communicated that they have ruled out any possibility of a 2nd shooter that night. It doesn't benefit law enforcement in the long run, when it comes to serving the public trust, to lie about that. Everything beyond that is baseless internet armchair speculation, void of the wealth of evidence they are working with in Las Vegas right now.

If all we are going to discuss is a 2nd shooter, which everyone here essentially agrees was not there, all we are doing is arguing the semantics of objectivity and this thread doesn't need to continue.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

We do not necessarily need to perpetuate this discussion just because we are in the venue of a CT forum. If the members agree that there is likely no conspiracy here (and that seems clear from the somewhat vapid argument about the 2nd shooter being the only overarching line of conversation here) then the conversation can simply die off...

My point that people seem to be missing is not just about a second shooter, but about all points like that.

A second shooter is always going to be an unnecessary complication.
Crisis actors are always going to be an unnecessary complication

If the goal was to make it look like a lone shooter shot a bunch of people, then the best way to do that is to use a lone shooter.

If the goal is to have a bunch of victims for the news, then the best, easiest way to do that is to use real victims.

I cannot see why they would need to use either of these things.

Overheal

A second shooter is always going to be an unnecessary complication.

This sounds as vapid as saying a second plane on 9/11 was always going to be an unnecessary complication. I disagree with such a broad statement.

If the goal was to make it look like a lone shooter shot a bunch of people, then the best way to do that is to use a lone shooter.

That, I agree with.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

This sounds as vapid as saying a second plane on 9/11 was always going to be an unnecessary complication. I disagree with such a broad statement.

I mean this in the context of the current discussion.

By "second shooter" I mean "using a second shooter when you plan to claim there was only one shooter"

If you plan on claiming that there was only one shooter, then it's an unnecessary complication to have two.

Overheal

Okay. But I think we've had a lot of noise about this because of ... the semantics of the claims.

Anyway. Just saw this in my news feed. Gun Hub is making the argument that the shooting was not performed by a bump stock, but rather, a belt-fed machine gun.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgunpornhub%2Fvideos%2F539104523093788%2F&show_text=0&width=560

FWIW I think their argument is based on a limited sampling range of the audio from the night, just a few seconds of fire, and while the rate of fire closely matches, its not exacting, the 2 rates of fire presented are out of phase from each other. The argument includes that a bump stock should have a *higher* rate of fire but given that the firing could have then been anywhere between, semi-auto fire and 800 rpm, it may just be a great coincidence.

Other commenters in the thread have also made some intriguing cases that the weight and loadout of the gun greatly affects the bump stock ROF and a similar loadout to the one reported that Paddock had, is actually in line with the ROF in the footage.

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

This sounds as vapid as saying a second plane on 9/11 was always going to be an unnecessary complication. I disagree with such a broad statement.

A second shooter in this situation makes no sense.

You are a shadowy nefarious group. You want to use a patsy to kill a lot of Americans in cold blood to get gun control laws passed (ridiculous of course, but let's entertain it)

Someone suggests adding a "secret" second patsy shooter. Coerced like the first. Armed to the teeth with guns and assault rifles. Filmed by dozens of cameras bringing multiple guns into the room. Requiring his own separate team of watchers. Requiring his own logistics. In what is going to be one of the most examined crime scenes.

He doesn't play ball? - entire plan ruined
He goes to the authorities? - entire plan unveiled
He fights back? - massive problems
He doesn't shoot and spills the beans later? - entire plan unveiled

And for what point? the only reason to have a secret second shooter is in case the first doesn't shoot. If the first doesn't shoot there's already a major problem. He's gone AWOL. He's broken the plan. Why complicate the whole thing by adding this extra layer of complexity, extra layer of risk on everything

It makes no sense even in this hypothetical situation

Gamebred

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worker-warned-hotel-before-las-vegas-shooter-opened-fire-on-crowd/


https://twitter.com/CraigNews3LV/status/918180339117277184


More bs in this case, something clearly not right here.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

Okay. But I think we've had a lot of noise about this because of ... the semantics of the claims.

Anyway. Just saw this in my news feed. Gun Hub is making the argument that the shooting was not performed by a bump stock, but rather, a belt-fed machine gun.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgunpornhub%2Fvideos%2F539104523093788%2F&show_text=0&width=560

FWIW I think their argument is based on a limited sampling range of the audio from the night, just a few seconds of fire, and while the rate of fire closely matches, its not exacting, the 2 rates of fire presented are out of phase from each other. The argument includes that a bump stock should have a *higher* rate of fire but given that the firing could have then been anywhere between, semi-auto fire and 800 rpm, it may just be a great coincidence.

Other commenters in the thread have also made some intriguing cases that the weight and loadout of the gun greatly affects the bump stock ROF and a similar loadout to the one reported that Paddock had, is actually in line with the ROF in the footage.

But this runs into the exact same problem.
If they wanted to say the shooter used a bump stock, then the easiest, safest way to do this is to have a shooter use a bump stock.
Why would they use something else other than a bump stock? Especially if it's an indication that there's a conspiracy?
If they had to or wanted to use something other than a bump stock, why not just say that's what he used?

There's not much of a point in mulling over questions of exact rates of fire if these questions stay up in the air...

ShowMeTheCash

Overheal wrote: »

This sounds as vapid as saying a second plane on 9/11 was always going to be an unnecessary complication. I disagree with such a broad statement.

That, I agree with.

I am going to let you continue from here.
What you said above was more or less exactly what I said a few pages back.

But onto new things:

I am hearing today that:

"
A maintenance worker said Wednesday he told hotel dispatchers to call police and report a gunman had opened fire with a rifle inside the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino hotel before the shooter began firing from his high-rise suite into a crowd at a nearby musical performance.
The revised timeline has renewed questions about whether better communication might have allowed police to respond more quickly and take out the gunman before he committed the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.


It was unclear if the hotel relayed the information to Las Vegas police, who did not respond to questions from The Associated Press about whether hotel security or anyone else in the hotel called 911 to report the gunfire.


"


I mentioned this before, the hotel will be careful in what they release or what information they provide so as not to either incriminate themselves in any failure to act. This is why I tend to be critical of the prepared statements released.

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am going to let you continue from here.
What you said above was more or less exactly what I said a few pages back.

But onto new things:

I am hearing today that:

"
A maintenance worker said Wednesday he told hotel dispatchers to call police and report a gunman had opened fire with a rifle inside the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino hotel before the shooter began firing from his high-rise suite into a crowd at a nearby musical performance.
The revised timeline has renewed questions about whether better communication might have allowed police to respond more quickly and take out the gunman before he committed the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.


It was unclear if the hotel relayed the information to Las Vegas police, who did not respond to questions from The Associated Press about whether hotel security or anyone else in the hotel called 911 to report the gunfire.


"


I mentioned this before, the hotel will be careful in what they release or what information they provide so as not to either incriminate themselves in any failure to act. This is why I tend to be critical of the prepared statements released.

Indeed, but none of this has anything to do with second shooters, fake actors or conspiracy theories

It's part and parcel of the fluid and changing nature of investigating, police work, etc

It's not like after 10 days, they suddenly claim, oh we found that 50 of the victims are fake and all the relatives are actors.. or we suddenly discovered there were 2 other shooters firing for 2 other hotels

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, but none of this has anything to do with second shooters, fake actors or conspiracy theories

It's part and parcel of the fluid and changing nature of investigating, police work, etc

It's not like after 10 days, they suddenly claim, oh we found that 50 of the victims are fake and all the relatives are actors.. or we suddenly discovered there were 2 other shooters firing for 2 other hotels

No but it has everything to do with new evidence coming to light and what evidence is presented to the public. This was pointed out way back at the very beginning but it was argued against with things like "why would the police dept not release this information?"
In the above example it may not be the police dep but the hotel management but it demonstrates that the information given to the public can be false or skewed or maybe just missing.

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No but it has everything to do with new evidence coming to light and what evidence is presented to the public. This was pointed out way back at the very beginning but it was argued against with things like "why would the police dept not release this information?"
In the above example it may not be the police dep but the hotel management but it demonstrates that the information given to the public can be false or skewed or maybe just missing.

I don't recall anyone arguing in this thread claiming that investigations are infallible or that new information doesn't come to light

It's a discussion of conspiracy theories - for which is has been pointed out that at no point there is no evidence for (even hypothetical ones don't make sense)

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I don't recall anyone arguing in this thread claiming that investigations are infallible or that new information doesn't come to light

It's a discussion of conspiracy theories - for which is has been pointed out that at no point there is no evidence for (even hypothetical ones don't make sense)

You argued that the statements given are a representation of the actual investigation. I argued we cannot not know for sure if the statements and the investigation or even the facts for that matter are mutually exclusive.

Dohnjoe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You argued that the statements given are a representation of the actual investigation.

I argued that the investigators know more than lay-people - that's true

I argued that there was little or no evidence for X theory - also true

I argued that the investigators had largely ruled out X theory - still true

There hasn't been any change to that

I argued we cannot not know for sure if the statements and the investigation or even the facts for that matter are mutually exclusive.

Absolutely but you argued that in relation to conspiracy theories... on a conspiracy theory forum. Slight difference.

Normal reason and logic dictates that the police/investigators/authorties could make plausible mistakes (e.g. the hotel guard was shot earlier than expected)

Conspiracy logic dictates that mistakes like that are indicative of a larger unspecified conspiracy at play (not logical) or that "anything is possible" (not logical or plausible)

bajer101

Is the obvious possible conspiracy here that he was actually a recent Muslim convert and ISIS recruit? That possibility would explain a lot of the hamfisted and awkward reporting. ISIS have doubled down on their claim that it was them and they don't have a history for claiming responsibility if it wasn't them.

There are reports today that witnesses' phones and laptops were wiped clean by the FBI.

Overheal

bajer101 wrote: »

There are reports today that witnesses' phones and laptops were wiped clean by the FBI.

Only from InfoWars....

If I wouldn't trust them to report on actual news, why would I trust them on this?

ShowMeTheCash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I argued that the investigators know more than lay-people - that's true

Wrong - Your argument was to presume what the investigators where doing based on press statements and an investigation that was only 2 days old. You even went on to say thing like

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In the most basic form they will have counted all the shots, counted all the spent shells on the floor of the hotel room, all will correlate with that info will the bullet wounds sustained - so on the most basic of levels (without going into further mountains of evidence) they can already be pretty confident of one shooter

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I argued that there was little or no evidence for X theory - also true

This argument was not about the evidence this argument was about what the public is told or lead to believe. Again you are not on the investigation team you do not know what evidence they had or even currently have bar what they release.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I argued that the investigators had largely ruled out X theory - still true

Again not true - You do not know this, again you are assuming based on the information you are told!
At the time the wording was "they believe Paddock acted alone" - You said this back last week "The investigators have repeatedly stated they aren't looking for more shooters" I never heard this, maybe they did say it but I never heard these words. What I do know is that on the 4th of Oct the same day you made this statement is Fox News was reporting Paddock must of had help...... (Albeit Fox new is not a source I would normally quote)

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Absolutely but you argued that in relation to conspiracy theories... on a conspiracy theory forum. Slight difference.


Normal reason and logic dictates that the police/investigators/authorties could make plausible mistakes (e.g. the hotel guard was shot earlier than expected)

Conspiracy logic dictates that mistakes like that are indicative of a larger unspecified conspiracy at play (not logical) or that "anything is possible" (not logical or plausible)

I have already said this before and I just seem to be repeating myself.
You seem to think because you are on the side of no conspiracy that your arguments are sound and logical..... They are not.
Trying to second guess what is known, what the investigators know and what they are currently investigating is a mistake You even go as far to try and suggest what they have or have not ruled out.

Nothing is ruled out after 48 hours, they might not have any active investigation or evidence to suggest a second shooter but to say "They ruled it out" again is a mistake.