Some additional information about the Las Vegas shooter

[allisolm]

We only know the purpose as they describe it to us. Were you unaware that the stated purpose of the program, and by extension the Utah facility, is to prevent terrorism, whether domestic or foreign? Bang up job, I'd say.

Actually I thought the purpose was to deal with cybersecurity threats. Hence the name Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center.

 

[ivwshane]

It's great that you were able to jump on it within minutes of me posting though, isn't it? Mr. "I don't know anything"?

Oh, and stop answering questions intended for others, it makes you look like a nosy bitch.

It is amazing isn't it, how I was able to spot bullshit within seconds of it being posted! You further confirmed my suspicions when you were unable to answer my questions. At that point it was just a matter of exposing you for the idiot troll you are. As others chimed in, some even commented on the videos and offered up counterpoints, to which you ignored or brushed off.

But by all means you go ahead and "just ask questions" while posting bullshit YouTube links that do nothing but muddy the waters with bullshit conspiracies that you haven't even bothered questioning their authenticity yourself before "sharing" with us.

I'll continue calling out your bullshit while you do.

 

[Fern]

Actually I thought the purpose was to deal with cybersecurity threats. Hence the name Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center.

Did you miss Clapper's Congressional testimony?

I refer to the second one, where he had to correct himself and admit all US citizen's digital data (cell phone calls, texts, emails etc) is stored there. And yeah, they claim it's for terrorism purposes. There have been many discussions of this. E.g., some 'experts' in the field have criticized the program claiming time and resources are better focused on individuals already identified, and then building two more 'steps". E.g., who have identified?, who are those they have contact with, and again who has contact with group 2. This has been advertised to be about terrorism. (The program/system I describe here has a name, but I just can't remember it.)

Fern

 

[J.Wilkins]

Great, you guys are awesome. Now, do you KNOW if Steven Paddock can do the same? Because I work in technology, and a lot of technologist I come across daily have a hard time knowing the basics of computing. Don't think that everyone is like you imagine they are. Shit man, a lot of people on this freaking forums still have a hard time figuring out Windows 10 menus.

Now, here's another question for you guys that have all the answers: Do you know if the crime scene pictures that were leaked, were they tampered with before they leaked those pictures?

Edit: I love your ninja edits, but you're showing tendency. You're so full of yourself.

No, but I do not have to KNOW that he did, I just have to show that it's easy enough for anyone to do to discount your assertion that it's unlikely that he had the know how.

And I did, so you are shit out of luck.

Older people and younger people usually don't have a problem with Linux, it's got a start menu, browser, e-mail client, it's pretty much what you'd expect it to be and FAR less complicated than Windows 10 for users of Windows 95-98-XP-Vista-7 than Windows X is.

Sure, you may think that only the technically inclined can use Linux but that only goes to show that you have never ever used it.

Download Lubuntu, boot it, good to go and if you ever used windows 7 you'll be able to use it.

 

[Thebobo]

I suspect the dude was a CIA agent or the like gone rogue.

 

[J.Wilkins]

We only know the purpose as they describe it to us. Were you unaware that the stated purpose of the program, and by extension the Utah facility, is to prevent terrorism, whether domestic or foreign? Bang up job, I'd say.



This is too funny. (Oh, and nice grammar for someone claiming to be English: "someone who don't".)

Fern

No what you are trying to do is to discredit what is known and you suck at it, don't blame me for your inability to sow doubt on a story.

Also, someone who don't (as in someone who do not) is grammatically correct in my usage you nitwit.

Next up, irrelevant shit will be spewed without any coherence... Oh wait, you already did that... Good on ya.

 

[SSSnail]

It is amazing isn't it, how I was able to spot bullshit within seconds of it being posted! You further confirmed my suspicions when you were unable to answer my questions. At that point it was just a matter of exposing you for the idiot troll you are. As others chimed in, some even commented on the videos and offered up counterpoints, to which you ignored or brushed off.

But by all means you go ahead and "just ask questions" while posting bullshit YouTube links that do nothing but muddy the waters with bullshit conspiracies that you haven't even bothered questioning their authenticity yourself before "sharing" with us.

I'll continue calling out your bullshit while you do.

So, so far, this is what I gathered:
1. You don't know shit (by your own admissions, a few times).
2. You have no answers (again, by your own admissions, a few times).
3. You're quick to provide answers to questions you don't have answers to. Or, questions aren't even directed to you.
4. You're hypocritical.
5. About the first video I posted, all I saw are people discrediting the guy, but not ONE person provide anything to refute his numbers or what he presented. Not one. Yeah, I can discern a 180ms delay in my living room if I'm really paying attention, but that's not what in contention here.
6. The other videos, I even captioned them with "conspiracy theory", that means I acknowledged some of what they're saying as conspiracies. You didn't see that?
7. You were quick to jump on my posts, providing nothing of substance. So really, what is your purpose here?

 

[Thebobo]

I suspect the dude was a CIA agent or the like gone rogue.

 

[SSSnail]

No, but I do not have to KNOW that he did, I just have to show that it's easy enough for anyone to do to discount your assertion that it's unlikely that he had the know how.

And I did, so you are shit out of luck.

Older people and younger people usually don't have a problem with Linux, it's got a start menu, browser, e-mail client, it's pretty much what you'd expect it to be and FAR less complicated than Windows 10 for users of Windows 95-98-XP-Vista-7 than Windows X is.

Sure, you may think that only the technically inclined can use Linux but that only goes to show that you have never ever used it.

Download Lubuntu, boot it, good to go and if you ever used windows 7 you'll be able to use it.

Holy shit! Do you only think in binary? As in, Yes, or No? Man, I'd say someday, you'll look back at these posts and realize how stupid or stiff you really are, but I'm afraid you don't have much time left since you're already nearing retirement.

Old people just don't suddenly become stupid or slow when they get old, it's a transitive property.

Edit: since your edit, I'm gonna have to answer it here. I know it's easy, and you think that anyone can do it, but on the flip side, I can tell you the same thing about very smart people who can't figure out how to install anything on Windows. It goes both ways, get it? You can't possibly be sure that Steven Paddock knew how to do these things. You just can't. Here you are still going on and on about downloading portable *Nix... jeebus man, that's not the freaking point. How literal do I have to be?

 

[ivwshane]

So, so far, this is what I gathered:
1. You don't know shit (by your own admissions, a few times).
2. You have no answers (again, by your own admissions, a few times).
3. You're quick to provide answers to questions you don't have answers to. Or, questions aren't even directed to you.
4. You're hypocritical.
5. About the first video I posted, all I saw are people discrediting the guy, but not ONE person provide anything to refute his numbers or what he presented. Not one. Yeah, I can discern a 180ms delay in my living room if I'm really paying attention, but that's not what in contention here.
6. The other videos, I even captioned them with "conspiracy theory", that means I acknowledged some of what they're saying as conspiracies. You didn't see that?
7. You were quick to jump on my posts, providing nothing of substance. So really, what is your purpose here?

1) correct
2) correct
3) I provide answers when I know the answer
4) I don't think you have any clue what the term means
5) you didn't show us why his information is to be believed it credible, that's just basic fact finding 101. If I show you some magic tricks should I then expect you to believe in magic? If you can't show how the truck was done does that mean magic is real? You have provided us with nothing and expect us to believe whatever it is you are peddling.
6) so only the videos you claim are conspiracy are conspiracy? How did you come to that conclusion?
7) you posted a bunch of YouTube videos with one word descriptors, what else was I supposed to do, read your mind and guess what point you were trying to make?

 

[allisolm]

Did you miss Clapper's Congressional testimony?

I refer to the second one, where he had to correct himself and admit all US citizen's digital data (cell phone calls, texts, emails etc) is stored there. And yeah, they claim it's for terrorism purposes. There have been many discussions of this. E.g., some 'experts' in the field have criticized the program claiming time and resources are better focused on individuals already identified, and then building two more 'steps". E.g., who have identified?, who are those they have contact with, and again who has contact with group 2. This has been advertised to be about terrorism. (The program/system I describe here has a name, but I just can't remember it.)

Fern

I'll believe it's cybersecurity and you can believe whatever convoluted stuff that is above, and I guess both result, according to you, in the data center not having any information on Paddock. Shrug.

 

[SSSnail]

1) correct
2) correct
3) I provide answers when I know the answer
4) I don't think you have any clue what the term means
5) you didn't show us why his information is to be believed it credible, that's just basic fact finding 101. If I show you some magic tricks should I then expect you to believe in magic? If you can't show how the truck was done does that mean magic is real? You have provided us with nothing and expect us to believe whatever it is you are peddling.
6) so only the videos you claim are conspiracy are conspiracy? How did you come to that conclusion?
7) you posted a bunch of YouTube videos with one word descriptors, what else was I supposed to do, read your mind and guess what point you were trying to make?

We both agreed that you don't know anything, and you don't have any answers to any of the questions I asked. So talking a lot about things you don't know anything of, or have no answers to is your thing? And I'm trolling? I must ask again, what is your purpose here?

Referring to your analogy of magic trick, I think you have that backwards. You saw a magic trick and concluded what you saw was real, I'm the one that's asking questions and hypothesizing. And, once again, stop speaking for everyone else, they're more than capable of voicing their opinions.

 

[brycejones]

I just want to know if they found his cigarettes.

 

[SSSnail]

SSSnail said: ↑
You're right, and you can, but not in that setting


What makes that setting special, sound follows the same laws no matter where it is. There’s early and late reflection from all the buildings he’s not taking into account, also all examined audio must be taken from the exact same spot or the measurements are flawed.

I'm talking about the setting where people are getting shot at and running and screaming and ambalamps and stuff... it's hard to discern. But, since you're a "sound engineer", how long do you think it takes you to take a few of these cellphones recording to get some numbers? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm sure if his numbers are bogus, someone else on the internet would have jumped down his throat by now, because people sure love to prove other people wrong on the internet.

The thing that guy was doing, he's going straight off the lag time between bullet impacts and initial sound reports, not off any echoes.

If you have the knowledge to disprove him, then why don't you? Do the community a favor, and expose him.

 

[Commodus]

The whole thread has this "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams!" vibe to it. That is, it's scrounging to turn a horrific event into something fantastical by using half-baked sources and pseudo-intellectualism.

It's the classic coping mechanism: we want to believe the elaborate conspiracy because we can't accept the banality of evil. Surely there would be a 'better' reason to shoot hundreds of people at a concert than insanity or some unstated grudge, right? Sorry, but people are capable of nightmarish acts for just about any reason, or no reason at all.

And here's a key reason why no one is willing to believe you, OP: you're basing your suspicion of conspiracy around questions regarding a prevailing theory, not with a logically sound alternate theory. It's like creationists whose 'proof' for divine origin revolves around gaps in the evolutionary timeline, or the 9/11 truthers who touted the jet fuel claim but ignored all the other science that made their theory worthless. Doubt is good; doubt is a cornerstone of science. But doubt by itself is not the basis for entire theories, and if the established theory is based around solid evidence (loads of field footage, the evidence found in Paddock's hotel room...), you need more than "this doesn't perfectly line up" to make people take you seriously.

 

[SSSnail]

The whole thread has this "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams!" vibe to it. That is, it's scrounging to turn a horrific event into something fantastical by using half-baked sources and pseudo-intellectualism.

It's the classic coping mechanism: we want to believe the elaborate conspiracy because we can't accept the banality of evil. Surely there would be a 'better' reason to shoot hundreds of people at a concert than insanity or some unstated grudge, right? Sorry, but people are capable of nightmarish acts for just about any reason, or no reason at all.

And here's a key reason why no one is willing to believe you, OP: you're basing your suspicion of conspiracy around questions regarding a prevailing theory, not with a logically sound alternate theory. It's like creationists whose 'proof' for divine origin revolves around gaps in the evolutionary timeline, or the 9/11 truthers who touted the jet fuel claim but ignored all the other science that made their theory worthless. Doubt is good; doubt is a cornerstone of science. But doubt by itself is not the basis for entire theories, and if the established theory is based around solid evidence (loads of field footage, the evidence found in Paddock's hotel room...), you need more than "this doesn't perfectly line up" to make people take you seriously.

AHhhh... finally, a voice of reason. Respect.

I wouldn't say "no one" is believing what I posted, because there seem to be a lot of positive feedback for those videos. Yes, those people may be coping with the tragedy through "half-baked sources and pseudo-intellectualism", but for the time being, they're not provided any conclusive proof one way or another.

I mean, you can't blame people for questioning the authorities when the perp's residence was broken in, but nothing is taken? No forced entries were reported? Why? Of course one can make the argument that if they can't even provide a timeline, then they're not competent enough to properly secure a crime scene... but that's just, sad.

There are many inconsistencies and unknown circumstances surrounding this incident. The authorities are mum, they appeared incompetent, strange coincidences of people dying, and those may be just that, coincidences. How do you explain the air traffic examination, along with the footage from different angles and people? Until some of these questions are answered, people are right to remain skeptical.

Taking your "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" approach, when I was watching the live footage, I can't help but thinking "wow that sure looks like demolition". It's natural reaction to what people know. Until for facts come forward, the rational people will move on based on factual evidence provided, but there will always be elements of skepticism around.

 

[OutHouse]

Doing a google search and downloading a single image to a flash drive is really advanced for some people?

for many yes. my wife is one of them...

 

[J.Wilkins]

The whole thread has this "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams!" vibe to it. That is, it's scrounging to turn a horrific event into something fantastical by using half-baked sources and pseudo-intellectualism.

It's the classic coping mechanism: we want to believe the elaborate conspiracy because we can't accept the banality of evil. Surely there would be a 'better' reason to shoot hundreds of people at a concert than insanity or some unstated grudge, right? Sorry, but people are capable of nightmarish acts for just about any reason, or no reason at all.

And here's a key reason why no one is willing to believe you, OP: you're basing your suspicion of conspiracy around questions regarding a prevailing theory, not with a logically sound alternate theory. It's like creationists whose 'proof' for divine origin revolves around gaps in the evolutionary timeline, or the 9/11 truthers who touted the jet fuel claim but ignored all the other science that made their theory worthless. Doubt is good; doubt is a cornerstone of science. But doubt by itself is not the basis for entire theories, and if the established theory is based around solid evidence (loads of field footage, the evidence found in Paddock's hotel room...), you need more than "this doesn't perfectly line up" to make people take you seriously.

Yeah, that is bullshit, complete and utter bullshit and you are a bullshit artist for even repeating this fucking retardedness.

In reality, evidence spouted on the internet is so present that you can find any truth on anything and ten more to discount it.

In reality, and this shit we live in outside of the internet, if you didn't get that, is fucking reality, we trust in others to provide actual evidence and analyse it. We trust in them because we do not have the expertise to do it. What can we do but trust them? Make shit up! And that is what is done....

The ONLY thing has changed is that now a bunch of derpers have taken it upon themselves to give their retarded opinions on every matter and play pretend they are forensic specialists while they are nothing but middle school drop outs.

So pretty please with sugar on top don't lend these bastards any credibility because they sure as FUCK don't deserve any.

 

[woolfe9998]

And here's a key reason why no one is willing to believe you, OP: you're basing your suspicion of conspiracy around questions regarding a prevailing theory, not with a logically sound alternate theory. It's like creationists whose 'proof' for divine origin revolves around gaps in the evolutionary timeline, or the 9/11 truthers who touted the jet fuel claim but ignored all the other science that made their theory worthless. Doubt is good; doubt is a cornerstone of science. But doubt by itself is not the basis for entire theories, and if the established theory is based around solid evidence (loads of field footage, the evidence found in Paddock's hotel room...), you need more than "this doesn't perfectly line up" to make people take you seriously.

Wow, you understand something about epistemology in relation to conspiracy theories that few people get. This reminds me of the years I spent debating Holocaust Deniers. They all agreed that there were no gas chambers and no genocide, but they just couldn't seem to all agree on what really happened to all those Jews if the accepted narrative wasn't correct. They also could never agree on who was responsible for perpetrating the "hoax." All they could do was attempt to poke holes in the evidence cited by mainstream historians. This is why the French refer to Holocaust deniers as negationists, ("négationnistes") which is a common thread uniting various conspiracy theories. They want to negate the prevailing narrative without supplying any alternative.

The most credible narrative is always the one which is most consistent with known evidence, anomalies in said evidence notwithstanding. If you really want to challenge the narrative, supply one which is more consistent with the known evidence, or don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[J.Wilkins]

for many yes. my wife is one of them...

My mother told me that when you have nothing nice to say... But still, a 9 year old girl can do that... I should know because my daughter did that with slack back in the day when it wasn't as easy as clicking a link and restarting a computer.

I REALLY don't want to slag off your wife but I'm wondering if it's not you doing that and selling her so short that you are implying that she cannot download a file and reboot the computer... Do you really think she is that stupid or do you just want to keep her stupid so she'll never figure out what a loser you are?

 

[Humpy]

I'm 61 you couldn't find a digital footprint on me if you so assembled the best people in the world to do it, they could not even find this post by me.

I'd guess if the FBI or whoever interviewed a bunch of your coworkers and acquaintances a few of them might admit that J.Wilkins knows his shit about computery stuff and there would therefore be nothing unusual about a driveless laptop found in his hotel room full of dead hookers or his complete lack of digital footprint in summoning said hookers.

I'm curious if we'll find out that the the Vegas shooter also knew his shit, or they at least found a little screwdriver in the room that could have been used to remove the drive before he threw it in the sewer. Something simple that makes sense.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yeah, that is bullshit, complete and utter bullshit and you are a bullshit artist for even repeating this fucking retardedness.

In reality, evidence spouted on the internet is so present that you can find any truth on anything and ten more to discount it.

In reality, and this shit we live in outside of the internet, if you didn't get that, is fucking reality, we trust in others to provide actual evidence and analyse it. We trust in them because we do not have the expertise to do it. What can we do but trust them? Make shit up! And that is what is done....

The ONLY thing has changed is that now a bunch of derpers have taken it upon themselves to give their retarded opinions on every matter and play pretend they are forensic specialists while they are nothing but middle school drop outs.

So pretty please with sugar on top don't lend these bastards any credibility because they sure as FUCK don't deserve any.

Er, what part of, "it's scrounging to turn a horrific event into something fantastical by using half-baked sources and pseudo-intellectualism" did you not get?

 

[J.Wilkins]

Wow, you understand something about epistemology in relation to conspiracy theories that few people get. This reminds me of the years I spent debating Holocaust Deniers. They all agreed that there were no gas chambers and no genocide, but they just couldn't seem to all agree on what really happened to all those Jews if the accepted narrative wasn't correct. They also could never agree on who was responsible for perpetrating the "hoax." All they could do was attempt to poke holes in the evidence cited by mainstream historians. This is why the French refer to Holocaust deniers as "negationists," which is a common thread uniting various conspiracy theories. They want to negate the prevailing narrative without supplying any alternative.

The most credible narrative is always the one which is most consistent with known evidence, anomalies in said evidence notwithstanding. If you really want to challenge the narrative, supply one which is more consistent with the known evidence, or don't expect to be taken seriously.

This is a very good post, although I'm not sure that you understand the concept of epistemology outside of philosophical musings of religion.

I'd critique your post by saying that epistemology is what is demonstrably true when the philosophy is used outside of faith.

And I don't think you can apply that to any examples you gave.

Also, I have lived in France for a decade and they do not refer to Holocaust deniers as "negotiators" (i'm rewriting your word since it isn't a word) but rather traîtres.

c'est la vie

 

[J.Wilkins]

I'd guess if the FBI or whoever interviewed a bunch of your coworkers and acquaintances a few of them might admit that J.Wilkins knows his shit about computery stuff and there would therefore be nothing unusual about a driveless laptop found in his hotel room full of dead hookers or his complete lack of digital footprint in summoning said hookers.

I'm curious if we'll find out that the the Vegas shooter also knew his shit, or they at least found a little screwdriver in the room that could have been used to remove the drive before he threw it in the sewer. Something simple that makes sense.

Well sure, from my real life you'd find a wife, a family, kids, grandchildren, a first wife and probably a load of anger issues...

But we were talking about online history.

And sure, if you want it to be that way then have it your way. You want to play pretend that you cannot run a computer off an external disk which incidentally was the ONLY way to boot a computer when I booted my first one.... Sure... go ahead and play the retard.

I'm not going to stop you, but please, go ALL OUT and make it count, you only get this one chance...

 

[J.Wilkins]

Er, what part of, "it's scrounging to turn a horrific event into something fantastical by using half-baked sources and pseudo-intellectualism" did you not get?

As an excuse ... I'm very drunk.

I have no idea what I wrote or what you wrote but man... it's all good.