Friday, November 17, 2017

Which is it, Robert Morningstar?

 James Concannon writes...  

       The civilian intelligence analyst who is wrong about almost everything seems now to have arrived at a final version of his article about the Las Vegas massacre of 1st October. The piece is titled LAS VEGAS VIDEO IMAGES AND SOUNDS PROVE MULTIPLE GUNMEN COMMITTED LAS VEGAS MASSACRE, and his serial amendments have served only to confuse the issue.


        Morningstar writes "I’ve corellated [sic] the videos linked below with this external photos [sic] of the hotel to triangulate the postion of the 2nd Mandalay Bay Hotel shooter who fired from a low platform atop the green roof porch shown above." (emph. added) The videos referred are the taxi driver's video and the video from the hotel across the street (that would have to be the Desert Oasis Motel, a crappy one-storey building.)

        My comments about that are, first, that at no time did the taxi driver have a view of that platform. As she approached the drop-off from the north she could see the sloping green canopy edge but not the gray platform AM* wants for a gun position. My second comment is that the Motel video is useless—the flashes seen on it are from around the tenth floor, and there are no broken windows at that level. I also note, as I have previously, that triangulation is not what the intelligence analyst did. But anyway, that's a clear statement of where he thinks a second gunman was.

        He continues "The Las Vegas Taxi Driver’s Video caught a shooter firing from the lower floor of the Mandalay Bay from a very close vantage point, i.e., pulling out of the Mandalay’s Drive-Though entrance." That would have to be something like this frame, at 04:59:



Here's an approximate daylight version of that view from Streetview:



        Again, the absence of broken windows absolutely rules out gunfire from any floor of the hotel except Paddock's suite on the 32nd.

        He continues "By comparing frames and correlating the driver's position and the camera angle to the shooter's position (indicated by the gun flash) in that frame, and using a triangular section of the unique roof (poviding two 90 degree angles for precise referencing,  I was able to calculate the shooter’s position to be outside the hotel and shooting from a balcony that covers the drive-through entrance of the hotel."

        Once again, the taxi driver had no view of that balcony area at any time. At the moment when she pulled out of the covered area, such a view was doubly impossible since the roof area was above and behind her (see image above.) I've looked at that section of the video multiple times and I do not see a gun flash, and neither do I see two 90° angles. It's my belief that the shooting had stopped by that time anyway. No used shell casings have been found anywhere on that balcony or rooftop.

         So Morningstar has offered us four gunnery positions, all of which are impossible:
  1. The balcony
  2. The 10th (ish) floor
  3. A lower floor
  4. A platform on the canopy roof.
WRONG AGAIN, frisbee genius.

23 comments:

George Benkel said...

63 year old did NOT use an automatic weapon which would've been a poor gun choice for this job, he would've barely hit anything and definitely not going to hit a single person 3 times in the chest!

Two Percent said...

Not "Usual suspect #3" again!? [Yawn...]

Haven't things, we, and the world, all moved on from there?

If pseudoscience is your jam, why are we wasting time on such a kindergarten-level flunker?

Surely, there is a whole oceanful of bigger, juicier fish out there to fry?

While I support sticking with the Las Vegas Massacre as a very worthy subject, can't we dig a little deeper?

Take Mike Adams, the (self-titled?) "Health Ranger," for example. He spouts a lot of non-scientific mumbo.

He's posted a clip on You Tube, that he says proves there were two shooters that night in Las Vegas.

I think that's conservative, but never mind. Have a look for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxmEFeKy8aI

"Forensic acoustic proof of SECOND shooter in the Las Vegas massacre"

[It has 1.2M views, and 12,000 comments...]

It's a great presentation, gets right to the point, and I think you would enjoy it!

But I see at least one obvious flaw in his argument. Why not some analysis of that?

With James being an Engineer, and your knowledge of Spaceflight, I'm sure you're up to it.

Well worth the effort, IMHO...

Cheers,
2%

James Concannon said...

« he would've barely hit anything... »

Hi George, could you explain how it's possible to fire a semi-automatic rifle into a densely-packed concert crowd without hitting anything? Seems to me that would be quite a trick.

George Benkel said...

I thought you serial debunkers always say "extraordinary claims" require extraordinary evidence. How likely would one person get hit three times in the chest? Canada does not have this gun culture anyway, I have no dog in this fight.

James Concannon said...

I don't know anything about this "3 times in the chest" story, but if it happened, it happened, and thatt's the evidence. It doesn't seem that amazing to me.

Two Percent said...

James,

You have to admit, George makes at least one damn good point - which you failed to answer.

I found one report describing this incident:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/02/tearful-vegas-concertgoer-describes-harrowing-rescue-of-his-best-friend-shot-three-times-in-chest

Of course, there may be more.

Anyway, the guy apparently survived, which fits with the most likely explanation.

Contrary to the headline: "...shot three times in chest", most likely, he was only hit by one shot, one bullet, which had ricocheted off the pavement and fragmented. He apparently collected three fragments, which may have been all there were. Being spinning ricochet fragments, the injuries would be much less severe.

This also aligns with the witness statement "I got hit" (still standing? and still able to talk!) which doesn't suggest multiple shots. For him to have been hit by three bullets, the gun would have to have been bolted to the building. Or very, very close. And, in the chest, he would certainly have died. It only took one bullet through the chest to kill Manfred von Richthofen. Maybe that was a hollow nose (but I don't think so). Don't know what the rules were back then.


Another point which deserves comment: James, you state: "... fire a semi-automatic rifle into a densely-packed concert crowd ..."

You imply a degree of accuracy which the evidence (58/1,000) shows was not present.

To be truthful, you'd have to say, "generally towards ... the crowd."

First shot, maybe into, the rest (per burst), likely over, due to recoil.

And if there were multiple shooters, how do we know any of the fatal shots came from the Mandalay Bay?

James Concannon said...

« And if there were multiple shooters... »

I believe I just proved that there were not.

Two Percent said...

Damn!

I missed it. Please, please, tell me where!

Come to think of it, how can you prove a negative in this case?

Even the evidence says there were multiple calibre bullets found. Why?

And, listening to various video clips, there were multiple guns being fired, from different locations.

What of Mike Adams' analysis?

Please, show us how that is wrong, as part of your proof.

James Concannon said...

« Even the evidence says there were multiple calibre bullets found. Why? »

Paddock had 22 rifles to choose from.

« And, listening to various video clips, there were multiple guns being fired, from different locations. »

Yes, of course multiple guns were fired. See above. By what miracle can you determine the origin of gunfire by inspecting an amateur monophonic recording?

« What of Mike Adams' analysis? »

I'm not interested.

Two Percent said...

Dear James,

Are you attempting to twist what others have said?

I never said "determine the origin of gunfire" but said "... fired, from different locations" which is quite different. Just to clarify, different locations means more than one place, but does not identify those places, whereas "the origin of" probably does.

" By what miracle can you determine [""the origin of""] => "different origins of" gunfire by inspecting an amateur monophonic recording?

HeHee! Surprise!

If you had bothered to look at Mike Adams' analysis, you'd know the miraculous answer (he does mention the Magic Shooter Theory [or WTTE]) and you wouldn't be shooting your toes off. Otherwise known as simple science, simple physics even.

Simple stuff. A nice analysis. Take a look. Spot the possible flaw(s)...

"I'm not interested."

Spoken like a true scientist!

Yawn.

James Concannon said...

Dear 0.02: On the question of "different locations" and without having recourse to the highly unreliable Tube that is You, perhaps it would be helpful if we list all the places in and around that hotel in which spent ammunition casings have been found since 1st Oct. I'll start, and you carry on...


1. Paddock's suite
2.
3.
4.
5.

Ozzy James said...

So it's true then?

Ostriches do stick their heads in the sand when faced with something they don't understand.

Ya'no, I always thought that was a myth.

OJ

George Benkel said...

I think NBC's coverage of the 911 "attack" is also highly unreliable. Instead, it's just forgotten about.

Two Percent said...

"James Concannon said...

Dear 0.02: On the question of "different locations" and without having recourse to the highly unreliable Tube that is You, perhaps it would be helpful if we list all the places in and around that hotel in which spent ammunition casings have been found since 1st Oct. I'll start, and you carry on...


Yeah, nah. Perhaps it wouldn't. I reckin ewe've got it all rong, Ji'mae!

For a start, it's not about the hotel. That just happens to be where Paddock's dead body was located. Why bother looking for more ammo casings "in and around that hotel"??? I guess because you've decided it's all about Paddock. Not about the people who died, or why, or what REALLY happened that night. If there was a second (or third) shooter 250 yards away, he wasn't at the hotel, so you need to investigate at that radius. But if you want to distract everyone from the possibility of finding out the truth, sure, tell 'em to keep looking at the hotel. They won't find anything relevant there now, that's for sure.

Second, you keep trying to fit the facts around your belief. Wouldn't a scientist be doing it the other way around?

Just for the sake of clarity, again from Google:

science
ˈsʌɪəns/

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Of course, you confuse MSM-reported details with facts. The "shot 3 times guy" is a good example. If there's a coverup in progress, the relevant facts are NOT gonna be published in the MSM... At this point, we still don't really know if this was real terrorism, contrived terrorism as a cover for another "operation", both, or just what. Seems pretty clear it wasn't Paddock trying to go out in a pointless blaze of gore, so what was it?

Anyway, if you really can't bring yourself to watch 5 minutes of good YouTube video, let me know. I'll spell it out for you.

Speaking of which, I'm sure Google would not be happy about you suggesting YouTube is unreliable. I have seen nothing to suggest it's unreliable - regardless of how fictitious much of the 'material' that's hosted there might be. There's also some excellent factual information amongst the chaff, but it takes discernment to identify it. Be brave, take a look at Adams' short clip. You would undoubtedly learn something.

Cheers,
2%

P.S. Don't forget, Blogger is another Google-owned entity.

Chris said...

TP: "While I support sticking with the Las Vegas Massacre as a very worthy subject..."

James is not "sticking with the Las Vegas Massacre"; he is writing about Robert Morningstar. Morningstar happens to have latched on to this subject as the latest means to demonstrate his breathtaking ignorance of pretty much everything.

The Vegas shooting is done and dusted and the killer's motive remains a mystery. There, I just saved Morningstar hours of typing.

Two Percent said...

Hi Chris,

" James is not "sticking with the Las Vegas Massacre"; he is writing about Robert Morningstar. Morningstar happens to have latched on to this subject as the latest means to demonstrate his breathtaking ignorance of pretty much everything.

The Vegas shooting is done and dusted and the killer's motive remains a mystery. There, I just saved Morningstar hours of typing.
November 20, 2017 at 10:31 AM


Yeah, seems like James is "sticking with" Morningstar. As I've been complaining, this suggests his focus is the man (ad hominem), not the story, and even less, sadly, the science. He can't even bring himself to watch a very worthy YouTube science video, which might open his eyes to other possibilities around the LV Massacre. That's a shame, as it takes him down to Morningstar's level. You ought to be careful who you accuse of ignorance!

We've all seen that Morningstar is no genius. Obviously, he can't spell, or even use a spell checker. He's stuck in the first grade. So why keep repeatedly trying to prove what has already been proved? Who else cares? Do you think he comes here, and takes notes? If Morningstar's ignorance is so obvious, why restate the obvious, over and over? Why not take on someone a little bigger?

Or, is this site in reality just devoted to repeated, boring, ad hominem bully attacks? A modern day Colosseum to entertain the masses with virtual blood-letting?

Sadly, James has demonstrated his own stubborn adherence to the flawed "official version" of the LVM, despite worthy (apparently) contradictory facts. As for it being "done and dusted", I don't think so. The public are not that stupid. You can fool... viz: JFK, Apollo, 9/11, to name a few.

Are you guys really just paid wingmen for the MSM? Or the gummint?

expat said...

2per¢ FYI you are misusing the term ad hominem "Robert Morningstar's analysis is wrong" is not an ad hom. attack. "Robert Morningstar is an asshole" is.

Chris said...

TP: "his focus is the man"

This blog focuses on a number of pseudoscientists of which Morningstar is one. If you want a blog which will entertain your conspiracies there are plenty of others suited to the task.

TP: "the flawed "official version" of the LVM"

The reported chain of events with evidence and common sense. Morningstar exists because people like you abandon critical thinking for drama.

Anonymous said...

Morningstar's merely a dipshit; you're an asshole.

Two Percent said...

Hi expat,

"expat said...

2per¢ FYI you are misusing the term ad hominem "Robert Morningstar's analysis is wrong" is not an ad hom. attack. "Robert Morningstar is an asshole" is.

November 20, 2017 at 12:55 PM


Thanks for your mentoring on this point. Would you mind helping me a little further, please? Where does one draw the line?

Would you please confirm for me which of the following are not ad hominem?

By Chris, from this thread alone:

"James is not "sticking with the Las Vegas Massacre"; he is writing about Robert Morningstar."

"Morningstar happens to have latched on to this subject as the latest means to demonstrate his breathtaking ignorance of pretty much everything."

"This blog focuses on a number of pseudoscientists of which Morningstar is one."

"Morningstar exists because people like you abandon critical thinking for drama."

Isn't that last one a double-whammy? Insulting both RM and myself?

expat said...

« Would you please confirm for me which of the following are not ad hominem? »

No. Grow up.

Ozzy James said...

WoooW!

The Hypocrisy, laid bare. True colors, exposed.

Great entertainment.

He's right, of course. The gauntlet is down. You boys need to pick it up.

Don't shoot the messenger!

trevor johnston said...

Im still not convinced my friend that you didn't purloin my stunningly subtle naming of Hoag's nonsense fiction as 'The emoluments of Mars.'

This was way back in 2001 on a forum - maybe Enterprise Mission's own BB which was freely open way back then - and moderated beautifully by the members themselves.

Whatever, I appreciate your sense of the absurd, so I'm prepared to forego litigation and settle for $1000 a month, which I'm sure you'll agree is very reasonable given the zillions the title is truly worth.

I look forward to receiving your first instalment.

Regards - Trevor Johnston. UK