Some additional information about the Las Vegas shooter

[Humpy]

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...

I have unlimited chances to play the retard, I'm not going to put all my effort into just this one.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I have unlimited chances to play the retard, I'm not going to put all my effort into just this one.

No, you had this one chance, now you're on ignore.

 

[Victorian Gray]

A few more things we've been told that don't seem to add up:

1. He had no assistance in the planning or execution of the shooting.
2. He left no digital footprint.
3. He was never in the military nor was he a gun enthusiast. I.e., not known to be familiar with guns and/or shooting them.

It's been reported that the note found in his room was a 'shooting table' containing his handwritten ballistic calculations. One question is how does a person with apparently so little familiarity with shooting even know of such a table and that he needs one? And where does he get the ballistics info for the calculations? A hard copy at a local library? Remember, no help from anyone and no digital footprint.

Seemed weird to me at the time that he had so many rifles. But then I was watching a TV show with former spc forces guys using various weapons etc. The guy using a (fully auto) AR15 made a remark about being careful not to shoot too many rounds too fast or the barrel would heat up and lose accuracy. It occurred to me that Paddock may have so many rifles so he could fire each til the barrel heated up, then drop it and get another. If so, how would he have known to do this? Sounds like a lot of experience, yet he is said to have had none (nor any help from others nor a digital footprint).

He was a CPA, played online poker and sent emails to his family, but had no digital footprint. Maybe I don't understand what a digital footprint is, but a CPA is going to know his way around computers, apps and networks etc. I don't see how he didn't leave a digital footprint. And if he used a pc so little I find it surprising that this guy figured out how to use it with no HDD. The average person wouldn't even think of that.

I see plenty of room for speculation and don't blame those who are doing so.

And I think there should be considerable focus on his girlfriend.

Fern

Not a gun enthusiast?

Las Vegas shooter recalled as intelligent gambler well-versed on gun rights

"An Australian man who came to know Stephen Paddock intimately in recent years has offered the most detailed public portrait yet of the Las Vegas mass killer.

He said Paddock was a highly intelligent, strategic though “guarded” individual who won a fortune applying algorithms to gambling, and studied arguments for his right to own weapons under the US constitution."

and

"It was on that first stay in Mesquite that Paddock gestured in passing to his “gun room”. Its presence in the two-bedroom home made an impression on the man – who opposes the US’s lax gun laws – but he “didn’t pursue it” with Paddock.

“His comments were that it’s a substantial hobby that needs to be protected: ‘a gun room’,” the man said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tephen-paddock-intelligent-gambler-gun-rights

No assistance? So? He seems to have been a pretty bright guy. You don't think that someone can plan something like this on their own?

No digital footprint? So what doe that actually indicate? Absolutely nothing other than he's a guy who can keep a secret.

Fucking conspiracies. The world is fucked up and that's just not enough for some folks.

It's fucking pathetic.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I could only assume that since you wasted no time at all to attack me from the first post, your belief or knowledge of the matter would be opposite of what's claimed in these videos, no?

Don't you have a grassy knoll to check out?

 

[UglyCasanova]

So what’s the motive?

 

[pmv]

There are only questions, the answers aren't all there, that's why there are questions. It's healthy to ask questions. When there are so many inconsistencies and mysterious circumstances, one can't help but ask questions. While it's not "necessarily some outrageous or nefarious thing", but it "could" be. You don't know for 100% that it's not.

I'm not one to believe whatever I see, I can take the lot of the crap, and filter for only the information that I think are relevant. Now, I may be wrong, but I also may be right. Neither you, nor I have a definitive answer on any of it. Stop acting like you have the answers.

It's not always healthy to ask questions. Not if you ask them obsessively and highly-selectively in the course of pushing an obvious agenda, while not being in a position to do anything to answer any of them (and refusing to accept the obvious answer when it's right there).

Anything _could_ be some outrageous or nefarious thing. So what? The point is, is it at all likely? I swear I had a coffee cup not 10 minutes ago, now it's gone! I _might_ have just left it in the other room absent-mindedly, but it _might_ be a sign of a vast anti-caffeine conspiracy.

And 'may be right' about what? I mean wtf do you think this 'conspiracy' was in aid of? It was a nut with a gun, happens all the time in the US, because you have lots of both of them and every now and then they are going to come together.

You keep demanding others 'prove you wrong', missing the point that you haven't actually said anything that requires disproving. Come back when you can actually make a statement with sufficient credibility that it's worth 'proving wrong'.

I suspect you are just edging your way to another bit of gun-fan paranoia. Maybe some other details will come to light, maybe some of the first reporting wasn't quite right, but so what? What great significance does this have beyond America having crazy people and guns? Leave the police - who actually have access to real information - to do their stuff for a bit first, eh?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's not a conspiracy, it's the incompetence.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...have_a_right_to_be_worried_about_the_fbi.html

 

[brycejones]

So what’s the motive?

Infamy, something to be remembered by.

 

[Perknose]

I wouldn't say "no one" is believing what I posted, because there seem to be a lot of positive feedback for those videos.

That you put any credence into the comments section of you tube pretty much says it all.

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.

The OP is an OT refugee. It's not like he's bone stupid or anything, but his posting history there reveals a guy whose sunny self-confidence exceeds his actual ability to be either incisive or funny.

He's so far out of his depth here in P&N we may have to call the babes from Baywatch in to rescue him. Btw, he probably thinks their boobs are all real and that Pamela Anderson can act.

 

[woolfe9998]

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

Epistemology, broadly speaking, has to do with how we know what we claim we know. For example, what kinds of evidence are sufficient before we can claim "knowledge" of something. I learned the concept in school likely as you did, as a branch of philosophy where most of the discussion is rather abstract. However, the concept has applications in science, criminal justice, history, and many other areas.

Negatiionism is a term often used in France to refer to Holocaust denial. It may not be the only term they use. I cited it because it's a useful way to explain what is wrong with HD and many other conspiracy theories. HDers like to refer to themselves as "revisionists" but revisionism means revising history by supplying an alternative narrative. The contra of revisionism is negationism, basically negating history without really revising it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Sometimes referred to as "negationism", from the French term négationnisme introduced by Henry Rousso, Holocaust deniers attempt to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Koenraad Elst writes:

Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941–45, also known as the holocaust (Greek: complete burning) or the Shoah (Hebrew: disaster). Negationism is mostly identified with the effort at re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Holocaust is omitted.[14]

 

[UglyCasanova]

Infamy, something to be remembered by.

Maybe so

 

[Victorian Gray]

Maybe so

Maybe he just wanted to kill some people.

 

[OutHouse]

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?

Really? was that necessary buddy? totally uncalled for.

 

[ivwshane]

Really? was that necessary buddy? totally uncalled for.

Semi related to the topic.

One trait that is very common with mass shooter types is domestic violence or the need to dominate women and their preference for a "traditional" marriage where the woman is subservient to the man.

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/07/55640...-between-domestic-violence-and-mass-shootings

 

[JSt0rm]

Well I just watch the first video because I am a sound expert. Why doesnt he show us the actual recordings?

 

[ivwshane]

Well I just watch the first video because I am a sound expert. Why doesnt he show us the actual recordings?

Because it's bullshit.


/end thread

 

[JSt0rm]

yes. I looked a bit further and this guy...

thinks that the snaps he is hearing are rifles shots. They aren not. They are bullets hitting the ground around people. the muffled low end are the shots. He thinks its 2 guns. The internet will be our downfall.

Maybe they are sonic snaps but they dont really sound like that to me.

 

[pmv]

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.

I agree with the rest of your comment, but I've never been convinced of the above as the reason for people believing in (implausible) conspiracy theories. I think there are other things going on, psychologically, culturally, and politically. Not that I can quite work out what it is. Probably multiple things, for different people and different conspiracy theories.

After all, a tendency to grasp at conspiracy theories is not evenly spread among all populations (and many of the groups who are more prone to it are also those who have a long history of being conspired against).

It's also obviously self-flattering to believe you alone are uniquely insightful and able to see the flaws in the 'story we are told', unlike all the sheep, so it appeals to those who need a source of self-esteem.

And there's also something in them that discounts large social forces and tendencies, in favour of groups of individuals determining historical events in an autonomous way, implying that at least some people (the conspirators) are completely 'free' to act according to pure will. There seems to be a powerful belief in individualism in there somewhere.

(From introspection) I'd say it's also about anxiety. Conspiracy theories might be a sort of external equivalent of hypochondria.

And of course a large proportion of such theories end up blaming 'the Jews' for everything, so sometimes I suppose it's just plain old anti-Semitism.

I guess for me it's not conspiracies vs random evil, so much as 'conspiracies' vs determinism and deep social forces that no individual or small group can control. I did at one point take seriously the JFK conspiracy theories (damn you Oliver Stone!), but I no longer give them any credence, and ultimately the main reason why I wasn't that invested in them was that I don't believe JFK's assassination actually changed history very much.

 

[pmv]

Semi related to the topic.

One trait that is very common with mass shooter types is domestic violence or the need to dominate women and their preference for a "traditional" marriage where the woman is subservient to the man.

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/07/55640...-between-domestic-violence-and-mass-shootings

True of a lot of Islamist mass killers as well (most of whom didn't use guns).
Failed wanna-be patriarchs, or male-entitlement in crisis, possibly.

 

[TheVrolok]

It's also obviously self-flattering to believe you alone are uniquely insightful and able to see the flaws in the 'story we are told', unlike all the sheep, so it appeals to those who need a source of self-esteem.

(From introspection) I'd say it's also about anxiety. Conspiracy theories might be a sort of external equivalent of hypochondria.

I have long thought that these are two significant driving forces given the other attributes of the groups that "believe."

 

[Commodus]

I agree with the rest of your comment, but I've never been convinced of the above as the reason for people believing in (implausible) conspiracy theories. I think there are other things going on, psychologically, culturally, and politically. Not that I can quite work out what it is. Probably multiple things, for different people and different conspiracy theories.

After all, a tendency to grasp at conspiracy theories is not evenly spread among all populations (and many of the groups who are more prone to it are also those who have a long history of being conspired against).

It's also obviously self-flattering to believe you alone are uniquely insightful and able to see the flaws in the 'story we are told', unlike all the sheep, so it appeals to those who need a source of self-esteem.

And there's also something in them that discounts large social forces and tendencies, in favour of groups of individuals determining historical events in an autonomous way, implying that at least some people (the conspirators) are completely 'free' to act according to pure will. There seems to be a powerful belief in individualism in there somewhere.

(From introspection) I'd say it's also about anxiety. Conspiracy theories might be a sort of external equivalent of hypochondria.

And of course a large proportion of such theories end up blaming 'the Jews' for everything, so sometimes I suppose it's just plain old anti-Semitism.

I guess for me it's not conspiracies vs random evil, so much as 'conspiracies' vs determinism and deep social forces that no individual or small group can control. I did at one point take seriously the JFK conspiracy theories (damn you Oliver Stone!), but I no longer give them any credence, and ultimately the main reason why I wasn't that invested in them was that I don't believe JFK's assassination actually changed history very much.

I can't help but think the "can't accept the horrific reality" and "privileged knowledge" factors both come up often, and that the two are frequently intertwined. You want to believe that you're one of the few to have deciphered this event not just because it makes you feel special, but because going with the commonly-held view would make accepting that terrible things happen without good reasons behind them.

And my "fantastical" reference was, to some degree, a reference toward what you're suggesting: it's easier to believe there are powerful, almost mystical people and forces driving events not just because they help people make artificial sense of the nonsensical, but because of what accepting the truth would mean. It'd be an admission that your life probably doesn't matter much beyond the people in your social circle, and that this isn't some Lord of the Rings-style narrative where you're the ordinary hobbit who steps up to save the world.

 

[SSSnail]

That you put any credence into the comments section of you tube pretty much says it all.


The OP is an OT refugee. It's not like he's bone stupid or anything, but his posting history there reveals a guy whose sunny self-confidence exceeds his actual ability to be either incisive or funny.

He's so far out of his depth here in P&N we may have to call the babes from Baywatch in to rescue him. Btw, he probably thinks their boobs are all real and that Pamela Anderson can act.

Your sunny self-confidence exceeded your ability to be incisive or funny.

I actually didn't put any credence into youtube comments, I was just pointing out the fact that I wasn't the ONLY one who had questions as the other poster posited. Obviously, there are a lot more people out there who had the same questions, since they find the video favorable. And that's all. See how that works?

And, Pam Anderson CAN act. I've seen her video with Tommy!

 

[SSSnail]

yes. I looked a bit further and this guy...

thinks that the snaps he is hearing are rifles shots. They aren not. They are bullets hitting the ground around people. the muffled low end are the shots. He thinks its 2 guns. The internet will be our downfall.

Maybe they are sonic snaps but they dont really sound like that to me.

And that was explained, where there are differences in bullets hitting, and gunshot sounds. I can buy the explanation of the different cadence and cyclic rates were due to different weapons used because he did have different weapons with him, though he'd have to be picking up the other weapon as he's firing another. He probably dual wielded at some point too, which could be a bit tricky with bump-stocks... I'm just trying to nail down the distance.

@JSt0rm, here's a recording from the taxi cab, can you make something out of the sounds from the first few minutes of this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O_3RQlKJb0

In his video, here's the clip where he's getting his analysis from https://youtu.be/JxmEFeKy8aI?t=427, I'm not sure which part of which video it's from. Even if you account for different grains used, they wouldn't be able to make up that distance. And I would doubt he bought bullets of different grains and loaded them in the same magazine.

Thanks.

 

[Thebobo]

There is a lot of weird stuff going on. I have some questions.

Where did he really get his money?

Is there a list of all the the guns/equipment that were purchased and from what stores and when?

And of course who really was this man? A professional gambler? I don't buy that at all.

 

[SSSnail]

There is a lot of weird stuff going on. I have some questions.

Where did he really get his money?

Is there a list of all the the guns/equipment that were purchased and from what stores and when?

And of course who really was this man? A professional gambler? I don't buy that at all.

He made his money from video poker, retired in his 30's while remaining a private contractor for Lockheed. Well, that's the "real" truth as told. Makes perfect sense though, doesn't it?