Sunday, October 8, 2017

Robert Morningstar gets the Las Vegas massacre story hopelessly wrong

James Concannon writes...

        First we have Kerry Cassidy listening to the voices in her head and reporting them as if they were factual, and now we have Robert Morningstar, frisbee expert, publishing 3000 words on the Las Vegas massacre and getting almost nothing right. I will respect his claim of "All Rights Reserved" by not quoting from the piece, but I will review it and comment on it.

        For a start, Morningstar gets the name of the perp wrong. Throughout his essay, he writes "Steven Pollack" instead of Stephen Paddock. He may have corrected the text by the time you read it, but the original version was wrong. OOPS.

Original text © 2107 Robert Morningstar

        Reading this essay through, we don't have to wait long for the first major error. In the very first line Morningstar claims that this event was the worst killing in the history of the United States. Well, compare 58 dead with 268 (Battle of Little Bighorn), 2,996 (World Trade Center) and 700,000 (American Civil War.) What Morningstar is unsuccessfully grasping for is that the death toll was the largest of any mass shooting by an individual.

       Morningstar's whole thesis is that Paddock did not act alone—that there was at least one additional gunman at the Mandalay Bay. He gets started along that road by telling us that Paddock must have had help getting 23 firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition into Suite 32135. Well, perhaps... my remark on that is that bellmen at the Mandalay are quite used to carrying heavy equipment, since many pornographic videos are shot in Vegas hotel rooms.

        Morningstar embeds this video in his text, purporting to show gunfire from around the 10th floor of the Mandalay Bay. But that's impossible—there are no broken windows at that level, and the alternative explanation that the flashes are reflections is infinitely more credible.

        A second embedded video, recording the onset of the attack and almost all the carnage, is used by Morningstar as if it proves the "second gunman" case. Very few of the gunshots sound like the weapons fire we're used to hearing in films and TV—some sound almost like a slow drum roll, and some are more like loud clicks. The distinction between the two sounds is the heart and soul of Mr. Frisbee-man's case. But bump stocks were found on 12 of Paddock's 22 rifles, and two of them were mounted on bipods. Does it somehow strain Morningstar's logic to suggest that more than one weapon was used, perhaps even simultaneously, by a single shooter?

         Morningstar originally stated that he had triangulated (how?)note 1 the position of the second shooter to the ledge at third floor level.


        That idea has too many problems to be credible. How would a sniper get access to that ledge, and come back down after the event, without being observed? Why were no shell casings reported on that ledge? Is that vantage point too low to be effective, considering that bleachers at the concert venue would obstruct the view from that angle?

        Morningstar next alleges that both the Bellagio and Flamingo hotels were sprayed with gunfire that night—a claim that has specifically been denied by authorities. He shows us smartphone video made by René Downs, but that video does not show what he says it shows. It shows crowds of excited people in the lobby and corridors of the Bellagio, prevented from exiting because the hotel (like all others on the Strip) was in lockdown.

        Our favorite frisbee expert wraps it all up by alleging, with no evidence whatsoever, that Pollack [sic] was working with the FBI over an arms deal that "backfired badly." Morningstar styles himself a "civilian intelligence analyst" but if this essay is a fair sample of his analysis I'd say he's a major, major failure.

Credentials
        In addition to making himself his own CIA, Morningstar writes that he is "a specialist in photo interpretation, geometric analysis and computer imaging." The Rational wikipedia lists six specific examples of where Morningstar's photo interpretation has been dead wrong. In May 2016 this blog listed 28 errors of interpretation by him. Once again, OOPS.

Update:
        Morningstar re-worked his essay into an article for UFO Digest. In it he suggested that a second gunman could have been positioned on the balcony over the main entrance to the hotel. The image below shows how more than half the concert audience would be obstructed by the stage and bleachers from that position:



=================/ \====================
[1] Let's remind ourselves how triangulation works, shall we? You take optical bearings on the object of interest from two different places as far apart as is practical. Transferring your bearings onto a map then pinpoints the object.

This, however, is not what Morningstar did. He took a single freeze-frame from the taxi driver's video (perhaps around 03:00?) and visually matched a part of the canopy to arrive at what he now says is a position on the balcony over the drive-through hotel entrance. Fatal to his case is the fact that no shell casings have been found at that position—many windows overlook the balcony and canopy and it's inconceivable that such obvious evidence would have been missed.

At exactly 03:03 there are two flashes, but they are not associated with any sound of gunfire and it's impossible to tell what the actual source is. They look a lot like flash photography to me. If this is what Robert AM* claims to have "triangulated," he's a flim-flam man, not an intelligence analyst.

83 comments:

Two Percent said...

Hi James,

I guess the advantage of choosing to critique someone like Morningstar is it makes your life easier. You don't have to have very high standards, to convince most people that pure rubbish is mere trash.

I couldn't overlook this one:

Morningstar next alleges that both the Bellagio and Flamingo hotels were sprayed with gunfire that night—a claim that has specifically been denied by authorities.

Which "authorities"? What makes unspecified "authorities" more reliable than ordinary media reporters, or eye witnesses? (I'm not including Morningstar, and I don't know where that story came from, but it's one that should be checked.)

It's a fact that "the authorities" (e.g. NIST) say that each of the WTC towers were brought down by an individual jet airliner, but we now know that that is simply not possible in the manner observed.

Of course there are plenty of reasons why "the authorities" may wish to suppress reports that other buildings were sprayed with gunfire. Maybe that's where Paddock really directed his bullets.

This incident is just too peculiar, strange and odd. Sure, the whole Paddock backstory sounds odd too.

Does anyone have any real information on "professional gamblers". I find it not credible that he acquired huge wealth for himself and his brother's family through playing the "pokies". He sounds more like some kind of reclusive, unfriendly secret agent, with a gambler cover story.

What I do know about the Casinos is that:

(a) they are now extremely hard to beat - the House always wins, and
(b) if you are somehow a winner, you are presumed a "cheat", and get banned.

The notion that Paddock could regularly win against computer-controlled pokie machines - well, that's almost as unbelievable as what Morningstar says. Why do casinos issue "ID" cards for "members", and do everything they can to entice the punters to use them? Surely, it's to "spread the love" more evenly. Nah, it's to monitor them. Sounds more like a PR story for a slowing casino industry.

And there are so many other things that just don't add up. I see parallels between Steven Paddock and Lee Harvey Oswald. I don't see an inexperienced lone shooter, who apparently didn't know enough about guns to even know which to choose, achieving this result. I mean, why cart more than 20 assorted guns into his room, when at most, he can use 2 at a time, if he's lucky. Of course, if he did, his accuracy would go all to Hell, suggesting he didn't.

Why choose such a big suite - ok, maybe its position. But, given how smart he was, why was his location so easy to detect? Why the huge holes in the windows? Why two windows? Doesn't add up.

The anecdote about the door alarm on his floor. Really? Likewise, his alleged noise complaint. NAH! Why would you blow your cover like that?

At least, unlike Oswald, he didn't live long enough to cast doubt on the "official" story.

One question I haven't heard anything about - how many of his guns jammed? Guns not designed for continuous rapid fire are not going to last very long before they jam, even (especially) with bump stocks...

Again, already too many things don't seem to add up. The story looks made up. It's easy to paint a dead man as insane. Is the story about his father actually true? And what did he really do? Of course, dragging out all the conspiracy theories so early in the piece is a great way to forever hide the truth.

Let's hear what real investigators have to say...

Whatever the truth is, this was another huge atrocity.

expat said...

THanks for the comments. I can't help you with much of that, but I can answer this one:

« Which "authorities"? What makes unspecified "authorities" more reliable than ordinary media reporters, or eye witnesses? (I'm not including Morningstar, and I don't know where that story came from, but it's one that should be checked.) »

The authorities are the management of the hotels. The story came from a woman called René Downs. It has been checked. Her video does not show what she claims it shows.

Here's the vid.

Two Percent said...

"The authorities are the management of the hotels."

Oh-kay! Many thanks for that clarification.

I have to wonder why James would choose to call them "authorities". They are business people, with highly vested interests in relation to this incident.

That was definitely misleading, IMHO.

It must be 1984...

James Concannon said...

The conspiradroids are really going over the top now. A video is doing the rounds showing police response to the shooting outside Bellagio. The only problem is that the scene dates from January 2016.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

My nine favorite of:

16 Unanswered Questions About The Las Vegas Shooting That Mainstream Media Doesn't Want To Talk About

#1 Photos of Stephen Paddock’s hotel room have been leaked, and one of those photos appears to show a suicide note. Why hasn’t the public been told what is in that note?

#2 Were there additional shooters? A taxi driver reportedly captured video of an automatic weapon being fired out of a lower level window. A video from another angle and brief footage captured by Dan Bilzerian also seem to confirm that automatic gunfire was coming from a floor much lower than the 32nd floor room that Stephen Paddock was located on. And if you weren’t convinced by the first three videos, this fourth video should definitely do it.

#3 Why were law enforcement authorities discussing “another suspect on the fourth floor”, and why isn’t the mainstream media talking about this?

#7 Why was one woman telling people in the crowd that they were all going to die 45 minutes before the attack?

#8 Why did it take law enforcement authorities 72 minutes to get into Stephen Paddock’s hotel room?

#9 Why did Paddock wire $100,000 to the Philippines last week?

#10 Why was Paddock’s girlfriend, Marilou Danley, in the Philippines when the attack took place? Did she know what was about to happen?

#11 Was Paddock on antidepressants like so many other mass killers in the past have been?

#12 Why was ISIS so eager to take responsibility for this attack, and why was the FBI so quick to dismiss that connection?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-04/16-unanswered-questions-about-las-vegas-shooting-mainstream-media-doesnt-want-talk-a

Chris said...

Meanwhile RCH isn't one to let a tragic mass shooting, and a death toll of 59, go to waste.

COMING SATURDAY [on TOSM]:
Christopher Knowles & Richard C. Hoagland
"The Deep Symbology Behind the Las Vegas Tragic Shootings ... and Their Connection to Ancient Egypt."

Two Percent said...

"James Concannon said...

The conspiradroids
"

Careful, James! Everyone who believes that 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic fundamentalists hijacking and flying planes into towers which then collapsed "as a direct result" is also a conspiracy theorist!

Or, to use your term, perhaps, a conspiradroid.

The fact that it's the "Official" conspiracy theory doesn't make much difference.

Two Percent said...

Good work, Chris!

So, how do you tell the real conspiracy theorists from the fake ones?

The fake ones already know all the pertinent "facts", and get their stories out immediately, WAY before the real ones have even had time to think illogically about it and come up with answers that take almost no effort at all! I mean, anyone can release a U-Tube video...

In case that's not clear, the problem now is: Who is really pulling those virtual levers behind the illusory conspiracy theory "machinery"?

THE Orbs Whiperer said...


This article includes a list of those killed:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4954706/Final-two-victims-Mandalay-Massacre-identified.html

Might just one of these victims have been the reason for the attack, with all the other victims, including those who survived, serving to obfuscate the motive? Could an attendee of the concert who escaped injury have been the primary intended target? Wouldn't be ironic if the real target wasn't able to make it to the venue?

James Concannon said...

>>I have to wonder why James would choose to call them "authorities". They are business people, with highly vested interests in relation to this incident. <<

Well, 0.02, if your question is "Was this hotel subjected to gunfire on such-and-such a date at such-and-such a time?" the go-to guys are the hotel management. That makes them the authorities. Who else are you going to ask?

OneBigMonkey said...

What is important here is that expat did not refer to them as 'The Authorities', just 'authorities'.

The distinction is important as the latter implies a whole set of belief systems about power structures to which you may or may not subscribe, the latter refers to 'people who know what they are talking about'.

People like Morningstar, whose profession seems pretty much to be 'making shit up for money', do not fall into the latter group. If you don't believe the hotel management when they say there is no damage to their building, get on a plane, go look. Or you could watch youtube and have someone tell you what to think.

What we have here is a whole bunch of people who have decided a priori that everything they hear, read or see in the media has been orchestrated for their benefit by some shadowy unseen hand for undisclosed, vague, and sinister purposes.

The conspiratard crowd here can't decided which theory is correct because they cannot fathom out motive, so they make motives up and decided what must have happened because there simply has to be a conspiracy somewhere, so they come up with some to try and fill in the gaps, and invent a load of crap along the way.

At best pretty much everything that is being put forward as an 'alternative' explanation for this is argument from incredulity based on nothing more than distrust of anyone in a uniform and a paranoid delusional fantasy construct from people who never grew out of their adolescent rebellious phase. At worst it's a cynical exploitation of those people by those with their own vested interests in maintaining this world view so that the advertising revenue and book sales from the system they supposedly decry so much will keep rolling in.

We will probably never know the truth about this, but that doesn't allow people to just invent some. Why the idea that some sick twisted weirdo just wanted to create some mayhem for fun is apparently impossible is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Hey, had to laugh!

[James Concannon] gets the Las Vegas massacre story

hoplessly [sic]

wrong

Two Percent said...

"James Concannon said...

Well, 0.02, if your question is "Was this hotel subjected to gunfire on such-and-such a date at such-and-such a time?" the go-to guys are the hotel management.


Ahhh, yeah. Not! And NOT my question either, that's for sure. Maybe yours.

You obviously don't understand the casino or the hospitality businesses.

Casinos are not where the most rational people go... A large percentage of their guests are quite irrational people.

The Management of hotels that provide secure accommodation and comfortable beds and safe sleeping environments for those often quite irrational casino-going people, knows very well that it is not good business to allow your reputation to be tarnished by unhappy events nearby. These things will be tightly controlled by harsh employment contracts and strictly enforced disciplinary procedures. Their purpose is to provide a highly desirable haven to guests seeking refuge from the harsh realities of life in Vegas. Not a bullet hole riddled shaky shell where you take your chances and where "you can check out but never leave (alive)."

They are NOT going to admit, "Ah, yeah, sure: our formerly safe, secure, quiet and peaceful, high-class, high-priced hotel property got badly sprayed with deadly, high-velocity bullets the other night by that lunatic across the way." Even if workmen are busy replacing the potholed windows at that very moment.

And they certainly aren't going to say it to anonymous little you, so you can spread it to the whole world on the internet. They just ain't gonna admit it. Their jobs would be history, like Paddock, for certain.

So, you completely wasted your time asking, and even bothering to mention it here.

Ivan Horn said...

Isn't it strange that every single tragic mass killing in recent history gets identified by those of the conspiracy persuasion, as having some kind of effort in play to hide the true nature of these from the public.

There's always a 2nd gunman, a black flag operation, CIA involvement etc.

It's as if the world is full of perfectly mentally balanced individuals, that would be incapable of harbouring any deep seated fears, hatred or other mental issues that might drive them to carry out such atrocities.

Sometimes a rock is just a rock.

James Concannon said...

BigMonkey: Excellent comment, very well put.

"Hoplessly" -- Oh dear. Sorry about that, it's fixed now.

Chris said...

TP: "So, how do you tell the real conspiracy theorists from the fake ones?"

I don't make a distinction since they're all equally bad. I've found that these more public conspiracy theorists lack empathy, tend to have big egos and resent the world for not appreciating them - a consequence of their terrible personalities. Being in possession of super sekrit information gives them a way to imagine they have control over everyone else.

In my experience this means that common decency goes out the window and they'll use any opportunity to push their supposed unique view of the world. RCH is doing it there, tying the murders into his stupid idea of Egyption symbology at the heart of everything that happens. RM does the same, ending up with a story that sounds like a film plot, with him as the brilliant director of course.

In reality it's all just more of the same eye-rollingly tedious post-hoc numerology by awful people wanting to feel important.

TP: "... Who is really pulling those virtual levers behind the illusory conspiracy theory "machinery"?"

The sad fact is that a bloke became so embittered with the world that he went on a killing spree before committing suicide. There will be finer details to come out and they will be as a result of evidence and informed opinion by experts. That's it. It's not film-like or meaningful.

Any conspiracies are entirely invented by those who want it to be something bigger and who want the world to think that they too are something bigger than they are.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

I see the responses to this thread as being similar in effect to the politicization of science, as if voting on which hypothesis has the best potential of being formed into a testable theory, is as good as proving it.

Two Percent said...

"OneBigMonkey said...

What is important here is that expat did not refer to them as 'The Authorities', just 'authorities'.


Sorry OBM, but that's just too fine a distinction for me. [FTR, it was James C, not expat.] While I agree the use of 'authorities' is not wildly incorrect here, to me at least, it's extremely ambiguous. I even looked up Google's choice of definition, and there are clearly two distinct meanings, neither of which is distinguished by the use of Capitals. I picked on this use of the word because it struck me as a distortion of reality, and as it turns out, my impression / intuition / sense seems to have been correct. That word seems to have been chosen to make the reported "fact checking" sound more impressive than it warranted (which is a criticism Chris rightly makes of certain conspiracy theorists subsequently). Further, no details of which "authorities" were supplied, and in these circumstances, that seemed quite remiss.

Regarding Morningstar, you are too generous, describing him as belonging to a profession!

As for conspiracy theorism in general, I think this is very much a natural consequence of history. AFAIAC, people who subscribe to some degree of same are sensible, realistic, pragmatic, and not necessarily lunatics. Of course, there are lunatics, and no doubt some subscribe while others do not have sufficient self-awareness.

A couple of relevant old truisms spring to mind in relation to Conspiracy Theorism:

George Bernard Shaw: "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

P.T. Barnum: "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

History is literally riddled with examples of people in power (politicians, businessmen, etc) lying to the people to further their own ends. Just turn on the TV, and consider that virtually every single advertisement you see contains some element of illusion. Almost every advertised product is cast to look better than it really is, for one reason or another. Just look at the pretty, appealing, interesting packaging wrapped around your boring old breakfast cornflakes. Watch a movie. Are the heroes of the movie downright UGLY!? Are the bad guys handsome? Seldom. Go to the supermarket and count up the number of products that are not sold in pretty, glossy, attractive packaging. Why? Because the marketers know that people don't want the truth. They want sweet, attractive, appealing lies.

The problem is that people have now seen so many lies and so much "spin" from officials, authorities, presidents, politicians and businesspeople, and, in contrast, such a massive aversion for the truth, that they have come to expect "lies and spin". Conspiracy Theorism is simply the perfectly natural consequence.

"I know they are almost certainly lying, but I don't know what's really going on, so I'll have to guess based on very limited information..."

Two Percent said...

Chris,

While I agree with a lot of what you say, I can't agree that no conspiracy theories have any merit. In point of fact, the 'Official' version of 9/11 is nothing but a conspiracy theory.

As I offer above, it's a natural response to repeatedly observed events.

I wish things were simpler, but I'm afraid they grow more complex every day.

If only I could understand

just 2%

Dee said...

Two Percent, no you can't just compare a well documented plausible theory and line of evidence, worked on by so many (overall) qualified individuals and agencies with just another "conspiracy theory". Especially since nearly everything is openly published under the watch-full eyes of many experts not buying the more exotic alternatives so far.

The sin you seem to commit here is called "false equivalence". Surely there are many challenges possible like with all complex cases but it remains unclear what kind of investigation or report would qualify before it's to you more than just another "conspiracy theory". It's a bit the same as calling the whole mass media "fake" and then refuse to question with the same vigor the quality, accuracy or motivation of anything that is then invoked to replace the news reporting.

This is not an invitation to discuss 9/11 here (seriously off topic) but a call to understand what the equivalence means to your own line of reasoning in such cases.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

The "watchful eye" of supposed, "many experts" has unfortunately become, nowadays, a canard. While the Media is not necessarily entirely fake, professional Journalism is not adequately supported by the six corporations which now own about ninety percent of popular media in the United States. If the news isn't fake, it's not properly presented as the editorialization, which it mostly now is.

Chris said...

Two Percent, please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say that no conspiracy theories have any merit. I said, in response to your question, that I don't make a distinction of "real" or "fake" conspiracy theorists since in my experience they are all equally bad.

I don't really buy into the idea of conspiracy theories at all, any more than I believe in ghosts to explain noises in the night. There are just different theories with different levels of supporting evidence. When someone says that a poorly supported theory, riddled with inconsistencies, must be true because its lack of support is down to a conspiracy, that person is an idiot. James's post was about RM who is one of those idiots.

I also echo Dee's comments.

Chris

Two Percent said...

Orbs,

At risk of offending Dee, I want to say:

Well Said! (x2)

2%

Two Percent said...

Hello Dee!

I have to say: What an awesome curve ball!

Your confident delivery and informed academic style knocked me for a six!

Anyway, my considered first response is to declare: "Not Guilty!"

I would ask you to present your evidence and speak to it, but let's try this first.

"Dee said...

Two Percent, no you can't just compare a well documented plausible theory and line of evidence, worked on by so many (overall) qualified individuals and agencies with just another "conspiracy theory".
"

Assuming you refer to my comment:

"... In point of fact, the 'Official' version of 9/11 is nothing but a conspiracy theory"

first, I think you might have missed my point. In my view, 9/11 is the 'perfect' case for a discussion about Conspiracy Theories.

As I see it, there are two main theories about the events of 9/11/2001.

1: The Official Theory: Some Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists hijacked some ordinary passenger planes, took over the controls, and successfully flew two of them into the WTC Twin Towers. Very soon after the impacts, the resulting damage / fires caused both the towers to collapse into piles of rubble, each virtually within its own vertical footprint.

2: It was an "Inside Job" in which, at its most extreme, the planes probably were not actually passenger planes, may even not have been any more than CGI-generated images and therefore never actually impacted the towers, but it was staged to look as if real planes had flown into the buildings and set them on fire. However, since it completely defies the known laws of physics for the towers to have been so utterly destroyed as claimed, as a result of these (even if real) impacts and fires, the towers had to be brought down as part of a well-planned and executed, professional demolition job, by forces unknown but apparently with the blessing if not orders of (some department of) the US Government, .

Now, if you consider the meaning of 'conspiracy' and 'theory', then look at this in an unbiased fashion, I believe you'll see that both these theories are vicious, violent and despicable Conspiracy Theories.

That was the point I was trying to make. The Official Theory is as good a conspiracy theory as any. That's the irony of 9/11. Whichever version you believe, you are a Conspiracy Theorist.

So, in that sense, yes, you can say I'm comparing the "Official version" with 'just another "conspiracy theory" '. I have no issue with that.

My question is: Why can't I?

I can. I did. I make no retraction, nor apology.

You seem to suggest that the Official Theory is plausible. I say, "Actually, it's not."

.... ctd

expat said...

Repetitive and off-topic comment from 2% disallowed. I'm averse to having this blog turned into a forum for World Trade Center sermonizing.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

Patrick failed to mention, that on October 8th, he also declined to post a particular comment of mine here to this thread, as well. In it, I make the same speculation that Ann Coulter, makes today.

wnd.com/2017/10/media-begging-us-for-conspiracy-theories

Media begging us for conspiracy theories
Ann Coulter rips reporters for claims Paddock got rich by playing video poker
Published: 2 hours ago

If this were a movie script, a terrorist would go to Paddock’s room on the pretense of buying guns, kill Paddock, commit the massacre, put his gunshot residue-covered gloves on Paddock’s dead hands and slip out of the room when the coast was clear.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...


Las Vegas shooting probe totally rocked
New revelations blow apart previous narrative
Published: 43 mins ago. Updated: 10/11/2017 at 7:50 PM

wnd.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting-probe-totally-rocked

The fallout continued Wednesday from police altering the timeline of the Oct. 1 massacre at a concert outside the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas, and now a hotel worker has emerged saying he warned the hotel staff that a shooter was on the 32nd floor before he unloaded a hail fire of bullets down onto the crowd below.

George Benkel said...

It's been two weeks since gunman Stephen Paddock powered up his piles of firearms in the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas, took aim at the crowds of country concert-goers his room overlooked, and began firing at the masses, killing 58 and injuring hundreds.

And what we know is this: Little.

Chris said...

As of today RM's article still refers to him as "Steven Pollack" (3 times), "Steven Paddock" (once) and "Stephen Paddock" (3 times). His third paragraph is a single rambling sentence in which he calls him both "Pollack" and "Paddock"!

Nothing escapes the keen eye of this civilian intelligence analyst. Except glaring errors in his own copy.

Anonymous said...

Just a comment about the reported "flashes of gunfire" the cab driver photographed on the lower floors of the hotel: Firing 400-800 rounds/minute in a hotel room will certainly trigger the room smoke detector, which will activate strobe lights and audible signals throughout the hotel. What the cab driver likely saw was a room strobe light flashing in response to the hotel's fire alarm system being activated.

Disclosure: I am a retired building engineer with experience working in 4 star hotels in the US.

expat said...

Thanks for your expert comment.

Two Percent said...

"Blogger George Benkel said...

It's been two weeks since gunman Stephen Paddock powered up his piles of firearms in the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas, took aim at the crowds of country concert-goers his room overlooked, and began firing at the masses, killing 58 and injuring hundreds.
"

Do we even know that much? Do we even know that he himself actually fired any of the guns? Until we know that, can we even call him a gunman? The whole story is now just so bizarre.

"In a chronology of events provided Monday, Sheriff Joe Lombardo said Paddock started spraying 200 rounds from his suite into the hallway of the Mandalay Bay at 9:59 p.m. Oct. 1, wounding an unarmed security guard in the leg."

[Copies on multiple news sites.]

Other reports claim well over 200 rounds into the hallway.

This amounts to about 20% of the total number of bullets he allegedly fired.

How long would it have taken him to fire these 200 rounds? What for, to waste time, waste bullets? (Purposely delaying his true "mission"?) And where are the photos of the bullet-shattered door(s), walls, etc? Surely, those are not offensive, and are some kind of "evidence"?

But he only wounded the security guy? Yet, he managed to kill 58 from a far greater distance.

And no one else was in the hallways, or in any of the nearby rooms, and no one else heard this barrage of bullets, or noticed anything?

BTW, what happened to all the glass that was smashed out of the windows of his suite? Nobody noticed the sounds of a maniac with a hammer, smashing out his windows... No one noticed the sound of smashing glass, as it presumably fell onto the ground, or a roof far below. And none of the glass "flew" away from the building as a result of tumbling in flight, and landed on the pavement?

At the end of the day, when we have all this to ponder, who really cares WTH Morningstar gets wrong? Why not mock some of this real pseudoscience?

James Concannon said...

« Do we even know that he himself actually fired any of the guns? »

Yes, the SWAT team smelled gunpowder when they got access to the room. There was nobody else who could have fired.

« who really cares WTH Morningstar gets wrong? »

Apparently, Revolution Radio does since he was on as an "expert" on the case twice. I care, too—he's an arrogant bastard who never admits his errors.

Two Percent said...


"Yes, the SWAT team smelled gunpowder when they got access to the room. "

Yep, that proves he dunnit. He was dead. Supposedly. So he couldn't deny it. So I guess the smell of gunpowder proves it was him.

"There was nobody else who could have fired."

What, you mean, when the SWAT team finally got there? After he was already dead for how many minutes?

How many guests were in the hotel during that time? Just Paddock, right?

Yeah, I believe, I believe...

The LACK of evidence is one of the most convincing aspects of this whole business.

Two Percent said...

"I care, too—he's an arrogant bastard who never admits his errors. "

Tsk, tsk!

Chris said...

Two Percent, you are making the usual conspiracy theorist mistake of vastly over-estimating your knowledge and expertise on the very incomplete picture which you have. Your inability to make sense of it leads you to conclude that there is a conspiracy or that it's "pseudoscience". To me that feels pretty offensive to those affected and those involved and working hard on the case.

The reality is that you lack the details, knowledge and skills needed to understand what's going on. RM, RCH, Bara, they repeatedly make this same mistake. You'll find that on this blog we're all very good at spotting, and calling out, egotistical bullshit artists who cry conspiracy. Try being quiet and letting the actual experts get on with piecing it together.

expat said...

0.02:
- A man books a suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay
- This man brings 23 firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammo into the suite
- This man hangs a DO NOT DISTURB sign on the door
- 2 windows are broken out in this very same suite, affording an uninterrupted view of thousands of concert-goers
- A security guard is injured by a volley of rifle fire coming through the door of that same suite
- Some time later, sustained rifle fire kills 58 and injures 546 at the concert
- When an ad hoc SWAT team busts their way into the suite, they find one man dead of a gunshot and nobody else in the suite

If you can't connect those dots into a picture of a crime, there's something wrong with your brain (or else you're just shitting us)

Two Percent said...

Chris (said),

"You'll find that on this blog we're all very good at spotting, and calling out, egotistical bullshit artists who cry conspiracy."

There's no praise like self praise! Actually, I have not found that, at all.

What I conclude is that this blog is focused on making ad hominem attacks on selected individuals at whom expat has "pointed the bone." Most people here seem to have little genuine interest in looking behind the facades that are presented to them by the MSM, to see what the heck is really going on in this unbelievably complex and convoluted world.

You guys need to get off your couches and go get some real world experience.

If you object to my previous post, please take another look. I'm not proposing any theory, conspiracy or otherwise. I'm just asking obvious questions.

In the post before that, I'm agreeing with George Benkel, and taking his comments a little further. Again, just asking the obvious questions. Where's the Conspiracy Theory in that?

"Try being quiet and letting the actual experts get on with piecing it together."

And THAT'S a False Call to Authority.

What I think you really mean is, "Get off our blog because you're disturbing the peace and quiet of our own little echo chamber."

I think that's now a very good idea!

expat said...

A little anecdote. I was once involved in a land deal for a property in the South of France. The deal was scotched by the local Notaire on grounds that were technically correct but nonsensical in practice. I went to see the woman who was the titular owner to see if we could work something out to the notaire's satisfaction. She had a brilliant assessment of the unco-operative notaire: "Il cherche des fourmis sur les femmes." (He looks for ants on women).

That's a REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE and when I recall it, it reminds me that endless nit-picking, regardless of its technical merits, annoys everyone. For example, 0.02 writes "How many guests were in the hotel during that time?" WTF does it matter? Suppose I happen to have access to that information, and I tell you—877 guests and 505 staff. SO WHAT????

I also remind 0.02 that the purpose of this blog is noted at the head of the page. We examine offbeat info sources, NOT the MSM.

Two Percent said...

Hi expat,

"If you can't connect those dots into a picture of a crime, there's something wrong with your brain (or else you're just shitting us)"

There is not much wrong with my brain, even if my personality is maladjusted at present. (I won't go in to that here, but the experiences that brought that to be also opened my eyes to "the real world" we live in.)

Sadly, "connect the dots" exercises are mostly found in children's books so it's a very unfortunate choice of words, in more ways than one.

Of course, I can form a picture of a crime. There's no doubt about that. The doubt, as I currently see it, swirls wildly around Stephen Paddock, the alleged perpetrator. Obviously, the story about him making millions in the casinos is a lie, even if his own brother truly believes it. That's the first "crack" in the case. My experience says that if you see smoke, start checking for a fire, something overheating, or the real reason for it.

I don't know what proof there is that SP personally took the guns into his suite, but if you go through your list, there scarce little published evidence to support any of the rest of it. SP's dead body was found in the room. As they say, Dead Men tell no tales. There was ample time for others to arrange many of these things. Finding "nobody else in the suite" is pretty much worthless information in a hotel of 30-something floors and I don't know how many guest rooms, guests, staff and visitors.

FWIW, I'm currently studying law. In my country (not sure about yours) the standard of proof in Criminal cases is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". In this case, it would be before a jury. On the face of the published evidence, I say a good lawyer would "have a Field Day," easily do an "OJ" on this case. If Paddock was alive...

But it certainly won't happen this time because the guy was not famous, more like a weirdo (so painted anyway) and he's already dead. There is no need for a trial, as they won't be looking for anyone else, will they? And, if there really is a conspiracy here, those behind it will no doubt "help" to make that a reality.

Given that there is no need for a trial (as there is no one to try), the coverage is because it's such a huge outrage, and so many people have suffered. Of course, based on my own experiences, I have great sympathy for those so many innocent people.

But as I have already said, I see great similarities to the JFK assassination.

And as I am finding over and over, it's much easier to "Just Do It" than to ask for permission. Once the tree is cut down, you can't put it back up, and what's the penalty anyway? It will not be worth the trouble (and costs) to prosecute over it.

No, I'm not shitting you.

As a Police Detective somewhere once said (paraphrased) about a case he cracked:

"I just followed the ABC of detective work:

A - Assume Nothing
B - Believe No One
C - Check Everything "

That's my "mistake", I guess...

expat said...

...and there you go again, looking for those ants. « Obviously, the story about him making millions in the casinos is a lie, even if his own brother truly believes it. That's the first "crack" in the case. »

That's not a crack, it's a pure distraction. How he made his dosh and how much of it is totally irrelevant.

Two Percent said...

"How many guests were in the hotel during that time?" WTF does it matter?

That was (obviously, I believe) a rhetorical question!

Sorry you missed it.

It's a freaking big hotel in Las Vegas. The videos show hundreds of people. So, the fact that SP's was the only body in the room doesn't prove anything, really.

If he was the only person in the building, before, during and after, then, very likely, he dunnit. We had a case like that here recently. Killed three people approaching, then himself.


Doesn't: "Il cherche des fourmis sur les femmes"

really mean he's prejudiced against women, and so was just looking for every excuse to thwart her and mess her about?


Regarding the heading, OK, I am confused:

The Emoluments of Mars
Mocking pseudoscience since 2008

The restrictions I see are (a) of Mars (this is not), and (b) pseudoscience, which this, strictly, is also not.

Sorry if I'm annoying you. Isn't that a recognised part of the process of acceptance of new truths?

expat said...

« Doesn't: "Il cherche des fourmis sur les femmes" really mean he's prejudiced against women, and so was just looking for every excuse to thwart her and mess her about? »

No it does not. It means that he will look at something that everyone else will admire and appreciate for what it is, and look for some tiny flaw to pick at. Just like you with your daft idea that any of the hundreds of other people in the hotel could have sneaked into the room, carried out the massacre, then sneaked out again.

The original essay by Robert AM* is pseudoscience because he made a pretense that sicentific information about a second assassin could be derived from 3 video sequences.

Chris said...

TP: "Most people here seem to have little genuine interest in looking behind the facades that are presented to them by the MSM, to see what the heck is really going on..."

What we're interested in is looking at the theories put forward by the usual suspects and applying a knowledgeable and analytical approach to them to see if they stand up or fall apart. Spoiler: they always fall apart. We're not here looking for conspiracies; in fact it would be great to find one that stands up once in a while.

TP: "If you object to my previous post..."

I don't object; they're mostly waffle. I'm suggesting that you take a critical look at yourself and let the experts get on with their jobs. You don't have access to any information "behind the facades" nor the expertise to interpret it if you did.

TP: "What I think you really mean is, "Get off our blog because you're disturbing the peace and quiet of our own little echo chamber.""

Of course you think that. I've already established that your ego and lack of skills makes you tend towards a conspiracy to explain things, so of course it makes sense to you that I didn't mean what I wrote but something else which plays into your fantasy, in which clever you are uncovering the Truth while being beaten down by those trying to suppress you.

Hoagland, Morningstar et al all use the same reasoning to avoid confronting their own ineptitude.

Two Percent said...

Thanks Chris, for the nice ad hominem attacks.

If you would justify your comments:

"I've already established that your ego and lack of skills makes you tend towards a conspiracy to explain things " and

"You don't have access to any information "behind the facades" nor the expertise to interpret it if you did"

I would consider them.

FWIW, I am already taking a critical look at myself. That's part of why I've come here in the first place.

I used to be a completely different person. Things have happened, and I have changed as a result. In some ways, very much not for the better. I'm trying to deal with that.

It was Leo Tolstoy who said:

'Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.'

I'm familiar with another version, something along the lines of:

'A fool tries to change the world, a wise man tries to change himself.'

But actually, it's not that easy. Many soldiers return from war suffering from PTSD. It takes quite a lot of work to undo such experiences. Maybe, one never really can. Innocence has been lost.

But I can definitely say, of the two, attempting to change the world is very much the harder.

And who knows, maybe Paddock never came to that realisation. What really, is the point of carrying out such a massacre? My experience, intuition or whatever ineptitude you want to call it, says there is something very fishy about this story. I say too many things do not add up.

But you are right. I will leave it to you, and the other experts here, to prove that it is exactly what you say it is. I know that I can rely on the skills and integrity of experts and scientists...

Two Percent said...

Hi expat,

Just in closing, I noticed this statement:

"However, it is literally impossible to do this from an amateur monaural audio recording, since the directional information simply isn't there. "

I have caught you out on comments like this before. This is actually misleading, and I don't know where you got it from. Yes, it's true that triangulation FROM A SINGLE monaural audio recording is generally impossible.

However, in this case, I believe there were many such recordings.

If these recordings were properly collated and carefully analysed, it would VERY LIKELY be possible to establish whether there was a second shooter at a different location. The problem in this case is that the audio is likely going to be complicated by echoes off the glass facade of the hotel in particular, which would add much complexity and uncertainty.

Mikey Muse said...

expat - "How he made his dosh and how much of it is totally irrelevant. "

I don't think that's reasonable. I think everyone now wants to understand his motive. All the reports say he was loaded. His brother says he made money gambling, but other reports disprove that - the casinos gave him the full High-Roller Treatment - so he was obviously a loser which is what they want, and take great care of. So, I think how he was making that money is very relevant. You see, this story doesn't fit almost any of the classic mass shooter profiles. He may have been a loner, but I think that was to prevent people knowing what he really did to earn that money. He wasn't the classic, social misfit failure. If he was an accountant and like his brother says, very methodical, he probably went to the casinos just to launder the money. In with $100,k, out with $95k maybe. Job Done. He obviously wasn't a social outcast, and got on with his family. Outcasts usually don't even manage that. High-Rollers can pick up a new gold-digging GF every time they go to a casino, if they want to. They probably have to work hard to keep them away. Then, he sent her away to the Philippines so she wasn't tangled up in it. Again, that's not a social outcast's behavior. So why did he do it - what was his motivation?

If he was a gun runner, or dealing in black market nuclear material, or some other highly lucrative illegal -obviously- activity, he would have been in a position to be manipulated in to taking part in this. There are a limited number of reasons why people commit murder, including things like hatred, rejection, jealousy, to cover a crime (esp sex), turf wars, MONEY, (insurance payouts, bad debts, etc), property, retribution, inheritance, theft, insanity, intoxication, etc. But what are the motivations for one-off mass murders of the general public? Isn't it a pretty short list? Usually, hatred of people resulting from social isolation and rejection, victimization, etc. Or, being somehow forced into doing it. I hate to say this, but like German soldiers in WWII. They were forced into killing innocent people, or be shot.

In most of the murders cases I have seen, the police do investigate the financial backgrounds of the suspects, to try to find out possible motives. I don't see why it wouldn't be relevant here. No one seems to have identified any clear motive, so all avenues must be explored.

expat said...

You make a good case, Mikey. I'll revise my opinion from "totally irrelevant" to "peripheral."

erickson said...

David Wilcock outdid Morningstar, bringing Tom Petty's death and the movie Jesus Camp into the shootings as part as of his search for a conspiracy that explains everything.

He imagines that the Cabal was distracting us from a stunning announcement from Wikileaks that will change everything we thought we knew about the FBI, CIA, and the Fed.

George Benkel said...

White noise, Word Salad.

expat said...

erickson: Holy moly, the full insanity. Even worse than Kerry Cassidy.

James Concannon said...

Partly re-written. Seems AM* is no longer claiming acoustic triangulation. Instead, he claims to "triangulate" from a single image. (!)

Anonymous said...

Image, as in photographic image?

James Concannon said...

Satellite pic.

Anon42 said...

Funny!

The "Official Story" is changing yet again. Presumably, to make it fit better with reality. For example:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03/las-vegas-shooting-gunman-stephen-paddock-lost-significant-money-before-attack-cops-say.html

and elsewhere.

Of course he was losing. That's what you do, at Pokie machines.

But how could the MSM and the Official Investigators not know that?

George Benkel said...

(In case you missed this, DONT)
"Last night, I was on radio discussing the Las Vegas shooting and the connection to what is happening in Saudi Arabia.
They are connected.
I'll start at the beginning.
There was a King Fasal who had a son, Prince Alwaleed, bin Talal.
King Fasal took ill and named his brother Salman as king in his place.
King Salman has named his son an heir to the throne, instead of his brother's son Prince Al Waleed.
Al Waleed is a Wahabbi. Salman is Suni.
Wahabbi is extreme Islam.
Salman wanted a more modern, non extreme Islam for Saudi.That's why he named his own son as heir.
In Las Vegas, Prince Al Waleed owned the upper floors of the Mandalyn Bay resort, including the 32nd floor.that was one of the points of shooting at the strip.
I say one of the places, because the witnesses were all correct. There were other locations too.
The Mandalyn Bay has a heli pad on the roof. That is important, because that was the escape route after the carnage.
Paddock was a pilot. He was also a gun runner between the Philippines and the US.
He was running guns for Prince Al Waleed.
He didn't win at the casino. Those millions came from smuggling.
On the night of the attack, I found out that King Salman was in Las Vegas. (I didn't know that part until after the show and I received a missing piece of info.
Salman was at the Tropicana.
The FBI knew Paddock was running guns.
They were tipped off.
They didn't know there was going to be an assassination attempt on Salman by Al Waleed just down the strip.
Paddock brought the guns as he usually did.
Instead of getting paid this time, he was killed.
He was victim one.
The guns were used to shoot at the country music venue.
That was to create chaos and distract from the real target over at the Tropicana.
Al Waleed's assassins shot from Mandalay bay, but they also were at the Tropicana trying to kill Salman.
That explains why there were shooters on the ground as well as in the air.
Remember the vids of the helicopter fly over.
I asked why a helicopter would be there when there was a shooter high up.
It wasn't news, or cops.
It was the assassins who ran up the stairs to the roof from the 32nd floor.
Remember they sealed the door to the stairwell?
Paddock had access to the service elevator, because the boss said he could use the elevator.
Nobody questioned him.
Meanwhile the assassination attempt on Salman failed.
Now we are seeing the result of the failed attempt.
It was not only an assassination attempt and a terror attack, but an attempted coup in Saudi.
This is why everyone shut up in Las Vegas.
The response is still ongoing.
You are watching it play out.
As I said, I spoke on air about this.
I will post links in comments to prove my story.
Las Vegas was definitely a terror attack.
Paddock was the gun runner.
Al Waleed, the owner of the suite was who is behind all of it.
All the witnesses citing multiple shooters all told the truth.
There were shootouts along the strip and in Mandalay Bay & Tropicana hotels.
The reason nobody is talking is it's not over yet."
- Jo Anne Moretti

expat said...

Stunning. Thanks, George.

There is no helipad on the Mandy Bay.

Two Percent said...

Well Done, by George!

Now ain't THAT a Conspiracy Theory!?

At last, a story that fits the (few) known facts a little better (read: far better) than anything we've heard before.

As I bin sayin, things "out there" are far more complex than we like to think. [Yeah, I don't like to think it either, but if that's what is, better to think it, IMHO. The alternative is to be deluded.]

No expat, I wasn't shitting you. I was connecting the few dots I could identify, quite well - in hindsight.

On this one, I reckon it's:
Mockers: 0
Conspiracy Theorists: 1

Cheers,
2%

P.S. I really hate to have to tell you this expat, but in the Google Satellite image of the roof of the Mandalay Bay Hotel (that I have just saved to my device), marked "Map data (c)2017 Google", on the south-western edge of the raised section of the central "hub", inside a 3-side marked rectangle, there appears to be an object apparently facing directly towards the central point of the hub. It's hard to make out the object itself, but if you look carefully at its shadow you might conclude like I did, that the object looks like a white helicopter.

Or am I just a lunatic Conspiracy Theorist?

Unfortunately, zooming in too close (thanks to whatever mangling Google 3D has done to the images) makes it much harder to see. Zoom out a bit and it gets pretty clear. Look at the angle of the shadow of the tail section. It's quite convincing, IMHO. And, I reckon you can (ok, I can) make out the shadow of the mast and main rotor as well. The curvature of the (shadow of the two) rotor blades looks about right, if the blades are turned to about 45 degrees. Is that the profile of a Bell Jet Ranger? Reckon it might be...

OK, so there's no helipad, or is the little H simply hidden by the helicopter sitting up there?

Or, maybe it's just an unofficial, unpermitted, retrofitted helipad, reserved strictly for VERY special guests... Maybe certain upper floor owners, perhaps?






Yeah, NAH! It's just some unusual air conditioning plant, with a very interesting shadow. There is similar (but different) plant on the other two spokes of the hub, so I suppose that's what this is. But why the painted rectangle?

Where's Pareidolia when you need her?

Either way, you don't need a helipad to pluck a couple of trained personnel off a rooftop by helicopter... so helipad or not, what's the diff?

George Benkel said...

You could drop a rope ladder from a Helicopter ...

James Concannon said...

If Jo-Ann Moretti knows these things happened, let's see her evidence. If she's just speculating, well *yawn*

George Benkel said...

I trust the Authorities and Government of LAS VEGAS, well I used to! The faceless corporate entities that run this dreamworld aren't even pretending to craft a mildly believable lie.

Two Percent said...

Oh James!

Don't be so ungrateful!

It's a much better yawn than anything anyone else has come up with so far.

Of course, there are some obvious flaws.

Like how do the sons of the former King and his King brother end up in "opposing" versions of Islam? Even my 82 year old relative spotted that.

And of course, Paddock didn't bring ALL the guns being traded up to the hotel suite, though it kind of sounds like that. Of course, he would only have carried up some selected samples. The multi- crates of guns being sold would be in a warehouse somewhere. I suppose the guns could have been smuggled via the Philippines... Not my area, so to speak. But could mean the GF is fully involved too, what?

All the same, many more pieces of this story make sense whereas most of the pieces of the official story don't. But the awkward international politics is a good enough explanation for that. So again, this version still "works".

And as I said, how Paddock really made all that money is entirely relevant.

Two Percent said...

P.S.

"James Concannon said...

If Jo-Ann Moretti knows these things happened, let's see her evidence.
"

To be fair, unbiased and genuinely scientific, you'd need to make the same demand of the MSM, or the Official Investigating Authorities, wouldn't you? At least apply the same standards to all sides.

James Concannon said...

Quite right, yes. The evidence is:

- The broken windows of the Suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay, occupied by Paddock
- The weapons and spent ammunition found in that suite
- Paddock's corpse
- The 58 dead and 546 injured concert attenders
- Some of the videos depicting the massacre
- Testimony of the SWAT officers and the hotel securiy guard

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

Here's a lead that might be easily checked.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7cc8hb/confirmed_mandalay_resort_has_helipad/

George Benkel said...

Some of the videos show Crisis Actors fleeing the Concert as soon as the Stage Lights go dark, before the recording of machine gun fire is played over the sound system, as if on cue ...

Two Percent said...

James Concannon said...

Quite right, yes. The evidence is:

- The broken windows of the Suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay, occupied by Paddock
- The weapons and spent ammunition found in that suite
- Paddock's corpse
- The 58 dead and 546 injured concert attenders
- Some of the videos depicting the massacre
- Testimony of the SWAT officers and the hotel securiy guard


James, I think you don't understand what evidence is all about. Seem as if you think you can simply join the dots from one piece of evidence to the next to prove your pre-determined view. Sure, it might be evidence, but of what?

There's no doubt there was shooting. There's NO DOUBT people died. Did Paddock have anything to do with it? How can you prove it? Who actually saw him doing it? No one known (identified), as far as I can see. Does that mean that no witness exists. No, it doesn't. So, what is your PROOF that he did either of these things? Are his fingerprints on the bullet shells? Are his fingerprints the ONLY fingerprints on the guns? Was he wearing gloves at the time, or bare-handed? Which guns were fired? Are any of the bullets found around the venue, in the bodies etc, a ballistic match for any of the guns in the suite? In order to make a case, you need an unbroken CHAIN of evidence, not just some trivial circumstantial facts. His dead body could have been planted in the suite, either before or after the shootings, for all we know. But hey, he's dead, so he's the perp. Simple, Easy!

So, the facts you list...

The two smashed out windows. Counter to the single shooter argument. Why two, if it was only him? So it was more obvious where he was shooting from? Not his kind of behaviour, from his profile. The fact counts against your argument, and in favour of Jo-Ann Moretti's, which is that there were two shooters.

The weapons and ammo found in the suite. Likely, they had something to do with it, but not proof. Show me the ballistics reports matching bullets to guns. For all I know, someone (daft) shot 200 rounds into the hallway, and a few hundred more into the sky. Or, not even! Maybe just 200 bullets into the hall, hitting a hapless security guard by accident. Where in the photos published soon after the event, are the approximately 1,000-odd empty bullet casings? There should be hundreds, all over that suite, but mostly, clustered near the windows. How about fingerprints on those guns?

Paddock's corpse proves he's dead. No doubt, proves he died violently. Killed or Murdered? What's your evidence either way? Maybe the truth is, he was there to sell guns. PERIOD. Maybe he had nothing to do with firing those guns. By all accounts, it wasn't a hobby of his. Inexperienced, the first recoil would probably have knocked him over, dislocated his shoulder and taken him out of the action. Was there severe bruising of his shoulder consistent with firing about 1,000 rounds of high-powered rifle bullets in the space of 10 minutes? I think he was simply wearing a shirt, no padding...?

The 58 dead and 546 injured apparently proves there were live bullets being fired. Doesn't prove any more than that. Doesn't contradict the Jo-Ann Moretti version. Doesn't point to Paddock. You need ballistic data, trajectories and all the rest of it to establish directions, elevations etc. Even then, doesn't create the chain of evidence directly to Paddock.

Some of the videos. Tell us more. They show people getting hit, or on the ground, injured, running... How do any prove that Paddock was on the other end of any gun from which the bullets came?

Testimony ...

Two Percent said...

Not sure of your meaning there. Do you mean Statements sworn under Oath, or simply statements? What about the contradictory eye witness 'testimony', reporting multiple shooters, some on the ground?

The "security guard" seems like a highly unreliable "witness". Even the time line is in doubt. Maybe he got hit by a stray bullet through the wall, and lay there cowering on the floor for the rest of the time. Who really knows but him? But the MSM wanted a hero, and he was all they could have / get.

2% said...

Hi expat,

Please allow me a revised version, to follow. I must be getting sloppy!

Killed or Murdered? DOH!

Two Percent said...

James Concannon said...

Quite right, yes. The evidence is:

- The broken windows of the Suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay, occupied by Paddock
- The weapons and spent ammunition found in that suite
- Paddock's corpse
- The 58 dead and 546 injured concert attenders
- Some of the videos depicting the massacre
- Testimony of the SWAT officers and the hotel securiy guard


James, I think you don't understand what evidence is all about. It's not simply joining the obvious dots. You have to find the missing ones and they ought to fit. What you call evidence is really only assorted facts.

There's no doubt there was shooting and people died. Did Paddock have anything to do with it? How can you prove it? Who actually saw him doing it? No one known (identified), AFAIK. Doesn't mean no witness exists. So, what's your PROOF he did these things? Was he wearing gloves at the time, or bare-handed? Are his fingerprints on the empty bullet shells? Are his fingerprints the ONLY fingerprints on the guns? Which guns were fired? Are any of the bullets found around the venue, in the bodies etc, a ballistic match for any of the guns in the suite? In order to make a case, you need an unbroken CHAIN of evidence, not just some trivial circumstantial facts. His dead body could have been planted in the suite before (or even after) the shootings, for all we know. But hey, he's dead, so that makes him the perp. Simple, Easy! No Brainer...

So, the facts you list...

The two smashed out windows. Counter to the single shooter hypothesis. Why two, if it was only him? So it was more obvious where he was shooting from? Not his style, from his profile. The fact counts against your argument, and in favour of Jo-Ann Moretti's that there were two shooters. The reckless, ill-planned way those windows were smashed out also points away from Paddock, IMHO. He would have wanted just a small, inconspicuous hole.

The weapons and ammo found in the suite. Likely, they had something to do with it, but not proof. The unused ammo is nothing more. It wasn't used, so proves nothing, except that someone carried it there. Maybe he was JUST an illegal arms dealer. Show me the ballistics reports matching bullets to guns. For all I know, someone (possibly in self defence) fired 200 rounds into the hallway. Maybe he knew he was in trouble, wanted to scare his enemies off, or alert Security? Got a better explanation? Maybe 1 of the 200 bullets into the hall hit a hapless security guard by accident. Maybe he thought the guard was his enemy coming to kill him? Who knows?

Anyway, where in the photos published soon after the event, are the approximately 1,000-odd empty bullet casings? There should be hundreds, all over that suite, but mostly, clustered near the windows. If they had been there, they would have been photographed. Where is THAT evidence?

Paddock's corpse proves he's dead. No doubt, proves he died violently. Murder or Suicide? What's your evidence either way? Maybe the truth is, he was only there to sell guns. PERIOD. Just another business deal. Maybe he had nothing to do with firing those guns. By all accounts, his interests were money and prestige, not shooting guns. Inexperienced, the first recoil would probably have knocked him over, dislocated his shoulder and taken him out of the action. Was there severe bruising of his shoulder consistent with firing about 1,000 rounds of high-powered rifle bullets in the space of 10 minutes? I think he was simply wearing a shirt, no padding...? The stupid Pillock!

The 58 dead and 546 injured (of gunshot wounds) proves there were live bullets being fired. Doesn't prove any more than that. Doesn't contradict the Jo-Ann Moretti version. Doesn't point to Paddock. You need ballistic data, trajectories and all the rest of it to establish directions, elevations etc. Even then, doesn't create the chain of evidence directly to Paddock.

Two Percent said...

Some of the videos. Tell us more. They show people getting hit, or on the ground, injured, running... How do any prove that Paddock was on the other end of any gun from which the bullets came?

Testimony ... Not sure of your meaning there. Do you mean Statements sworn under Oath, or simply statements? What about the contradictory eye witness 'testimony', reporting multiple shooters, some on the ground?

The "security guard" seems like a highly unreliable "witness". Even the time line is in doubt. Maybe he got hit by a stray bullet through the wall, and lay there cowering on the floor for the rest of the time. Who really knows but him? But the MSM wanted a hero, and he was all they could have / get.

Two Percent said...

Another belated thought.

Paddock is reported to have earlier booked into another hotel with a suite overlooking another concert or similar event.

The 'authorities' gave this a sinister meaning.

To the contrary, I say this points to Paddock's true business, and his intelligence and planning skills.

If you are using hotel rooms to conduct shady deals and prefer to go unnoticed, the best time to do it is when the place is crawling with concert goers and all manner of odd out-of-towners. Then, you and your foreign guests are gonna fit right in, besides which, the hotel staff and management will be far too busy to worry about a couple of foreigners and some weird white guy hanging out together. Likewise, the Police will be more worried about protecting the concert goers than wondering what Paddock and friends are up to.

Seems to me much more that he was a smart operator than a nutter mass murderer.

James Concannon said...

2per¢... It's often said that there are no stupid questions, but I think you disproved that old adage instantly with your "Who actually saw him doing it?" The rest of your questions are fairer but not by much.

You see, the reason the cops do all that fingerprint-dusting, ballistics-testing and DNA swatching is that normally the perp gets to stand up in court saying "I never did it, honest guv'nor." They have to convince a jury otherwise (or if the perp is OJ Simpson and the defence is Johnny Cochran, not). In this case the perp is lying down saying "Hallo, I'm dead" so there's no need for all the fancy and expensive stuff.

No doubt you and Robert AM* take some pleasure in spinning fictions around the known facts, and I suppose it does little if any harm, but the rest of us look at the broken windows, the dead bodies, the weapons and the ammunition both used and unused, and draw the screamingly obvious conclusion.

James Concannon said...

I made a very late addition today, right at the end, having had another detailed look at the taxi driver's vid.

Two Percent said...

James Concannon said...

" 2per¢...

...

You see, the reason the cops do all that fingerprint-dusting, ballistics-testing and DNA swatching is that normally the perp gets to stand up in court saying "I never did it, honest guv'nor." They have to convince a jury otherwise (or if the perp is OJ Simpson and the defence is Johnny Cochran, not). In this case the perp is lying down saying "Hallo, I'm dead" so there's no need for all the fancy and expensive stuff.

No doubt you and Robert AM* take some pleasure in spinning fictions around the known facts, and I suppose it does little if any harm, but the rest of us look at the broken windows, the dead bodies, the weapons and the ammunition both used and unused, and draw the screamingly obvious conclusion.



Ummm... Hi James!

Are you sure...?

Seriously, I'm asking myself: do I dignify this with a reply, or let someone else do it, or simply let this monument stand on its own? Of course, I have to acknowledge it, or you'll think I have no answer, and THAT would be a mistake!

Unfortunately, expat declined to be a gentleman and post my revised version from November 13, 2017 at 7:42 PM or thereabouts, instead letting my hasty and slightly erroneous post and subsequent request stand, so I suppose he ought to treat you in the same way - except, of course, that you two are nominally on the same "side".

Anyway, while I let you think about this, I'm sure you meant Johnnie Cochran, as in Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran , but I guess that's splitting hairs. Then again, isn't that often at the very heart of forensic science and crime investigation?

So, this matter ISN'T a crime investigation, then? Do we ALL (except me, and George Benkel at least) simply draw, LEAP TO, or JUMP TO, launch ourselves upon, take by force (or whatever dramatic term you prefer) "the screamingly obvious conclusion" you mention, and happily leave it at that?

One of the points in error in my earlier hasty post, which I corrected later, was, effectively, "Was Paddock's death Murder or Suicide?"

That question lies at the very heart of this event.

As I have already said in this thread (and at the risk that expat will call this repetitive...):

" I say a good lawyer would "have a Field Day," easily do an "OJ" on this case. If Paddock was alive...

[So it was me who first mentioned OJ.]

In the same breath, I also said:

But it certainly won't happen this time because the guy was not famous, more like a weirdo (so painted anyway) and he's already dead. There is no need for a trial, as they won't be looking for anyone else, will they? And, if there really is a conspiracy here, ...

Let me amend the conclusion of that last sentence, thus: and its not investigated properly, then a miscarriage of justice will certainly follow.

And the people will have been lied to yet again.

Anyway, enough for now. I'll let you ponder the correct scientific approach to this whole business.

Hint: Jumping to the most screamingly obvious conclusion might not actually be scientific... Or sound.

expat said...

« Unfortunately, expat declined to be a gentleman and post my revised version from November 13, 2017 at 7:42 PM or thereabouts »

It's published. Look again.

Two Percent said...

expat: There is some mistake. I re-posted an amended version after my request, but it hasn't appeared.

Will post again.

Two Percent said...

James Concannon said...

Quite right, yes. The evidence is:

- The broken windows of the Suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay, occupied by Paddock
- The weapons and spent ammunition found in that suite
- Paddock's corpse
- The 58 dead and 546 injured concert attenders
- Some of the videos depicting the massacre
- Testimony of the SWAT officers and the hotel securiy guard


James, I think you don't understand what evidence is all about. It's not simply joining the obvious dots. You have to find the missing ones and they ought to fit. What you call evidence is really only assorted facts.

There's no doubt there was shooting and people died. Did Paddock have anything to do with it? How can you prove it? Who actually saw him doing it? No one known (identified), AFAIK. Doesn't mean no witness exists. So, what's your PROOF he did these things? Was he wearing gloves at the time, or bare-handed? Are his fingerprints on the empty bullet shells? Are his fingerprints the ONLY fingerprints on the guns? Which guns were fired? Are any of the bullets found around the venue, in the bodies etc, a ballistic match for any of the guns in the suite? In order to make a case, you need an unbroken CHAIN of evidence, not just some trivial circumstantial facts. His dead body could have been planted in the suite before (or even after) the shootings, for all we know. But hey, he's dead, so that makes him the perp. Simple, Easy! No Brainer...

So, the facts you list...

The two smashed out windows. Counter to the single shooter hypothesis. Why two, if it was only him? So it was more obvious where he was shooting from? Not his style, from his profile. The fact counts against your argument, and in favour of Jo-Ann Moretti's that there were two shooters. The reckless, ill-planned way those windows were smashed out also points away from Paddock, IMHO. He would have wanted just a small, inconspicuous hole.

The weapons and ammo found in the suite. Likely, they had something to do with it, but not proof. The unused ammo is nothing more. It wasn't used, so proves nothing, except that someone carried it there. Maybe he was JUST an illegal arms dealer. Show me the ballistics reports matching bullets to guns. For all I know, someone (possibly in self defence) fired 200 rounds into the hallway. Maybe he knew he was in trouble, wanted to scare his enemies off, or alert Security? Got a better explanation? Maybe 1 of the 200 bullets into the hall hit a hapless security guard by accident. Maybe he thought the guard was his enemy coming to kill him? Who knows?

Anyway, where in the photos published soon after the event, are the approximately 1,000-odd empty bullet casings? There should be hundreds, all over that suite, but mostly, clustered near the windows. If they had been there, they would have been photographed. Where is THAT evidence?

Paddock's corpse proves he's dead. No doubt, proves he died violently. Murder or Suicide? What's your evidence either way? Maybe the truth is, he was only there to sell guns. PERIOD. Just another business deal. Maybe he had nothing to do with firing those guns. By all accounts, his interests were money and prestige, not shooting guns. Inexperienced, the first recoil would probably have knocked him over, dislocated his shoulder and taken him out of the action. Was there severe bruising of his shoulder consistent with firing about 1,000 rounds of high-powered rifle bullets in the space of 10 minutes? I think he was simply wearing a shirt, no padding...? The stupid Pillock!

The 58 dead and 546 injured (of gunshot wounds) proves there were live bullets being fired. Doesn't prove any more than that. Doesn't contradict the Jo-Ann Moretti version. Doesn't point to Paddock. You need ballistic data, trajectories and all the rest of it to establish directions, elevations etc. Even then, doesn't create the chain of evidence directly to Paddock.

...

Two Percent said...

Some of the videos. Tell us more. They show people getting hit, or on the ground, injured, running... How do any prove that Paddock was on the other end of any gun from which the bullets came?

Testimony ... Not sure of your meaning there. Do you mean Statements sworn under Oath, or simply statements? What about the contradictory eye witness 'testimony', reporting multiple shooters, some on the ground?

The "security guard" seems like a highly unreliable "witness". Even the time line is in doubt. Maybe he got hit by a stray bullet through the wall, and lay there cowering on the floor for the rest of the time. Who really knows but him? But the MSM wanted a hero, and he was all they could have / get.

expat said...

A good lawyer would "do an OJ" on this case eh???

I see it in my mind's eye. Cochran, in a resplendent Mondriaan-inspired necktie, addresses the jury:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we will show that our client is entirely innocent of the deaths of these 58 people. We cannot deny that he was present in the hotel suite at the time, or that the firearms found therein were his property, or that his fingerprints were on some of the spent ammunition nearby, but we will show that a person or persons unknown gained access to the hotel suite, carried out this horrible crime while our client looked on, and then left before the police had time to enter the suite."

Have you heard that old cliché "A muffled titter ran round the court"?

Two Percent said...

Too bad he's dead. If he wasn't, he WOULD be able to provide a lot of evidence in his own defence. The whole fascinating story would come out. Isn't THAT the whole point (of him being dead)?

So his death was undeniably Suicide then?

That's an established fact, is it?

And the Jo Anne Moretti story has no basis in any kind of reality, and has been completely demolished? Shame it wasn't, here.

So how would a Frame Up look, in this scenario?

How has the possibility been ruled out?

George Benkel said...

Orville Almon, the lawyer representing the Route 91 music festival and Jason Aldean, the singer onstage when the Las Vegas shooting began, has been found dead.

these aren't the droids mumble ...

Two Percent said...

"expat said...

I see it in my mind's eye. Cochran, in a resplendent Mondriaan-inspired necktie, addresses the jury:
"

FWIW, here's how the defense opened in the OJ case:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-26/news/mn-24705_1_opening-statement

... And here we are now, several months later, in this search for justice. You've heard a lot about this talk of justice. I guess Dr. Martin Luther King said it best when he said that 'injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' So we are now embarked upon a search for justice, this search for truth, this search for the facts. . . .

You, as jurors, are the conscience of this community. Your verdicts set the standards of what we should have and what should happen in this community. You have this rare opportunity, it seems to me, to be participants in this search for justice and for truth. . . .

In the course of my statement today, let me tell you some of the things they (prosecution attorneys) didn't tell you yesterday, and we'll have to wonder why they didn't do that.

The evidence in this case, we believe, will show that O.J. Simpson is an innocent man wrongfully accused. (Prosecutor Christopher) Darden said yesterday that in Richmond, Calif., and someplace in Georgia, people were asking questions. Well, I'd like to think in my hometown of Shreveport, La., my mother-in-law in New Orleans, La., and other places throughout this country, today they're asking why did Mr. Darden spend all that time on domestic violence? This is a murder case. Why'd he do that? ...


FWIW, you wouldn't make a good defense lawyer, expat. You didn't even try! Your opening is MUCH too direct, much too bald and challenging. See how Johnnie boy started by steering the jury's attention to lofty events and people - justice, Martin Luther King, justice, truth, facts...

Then, he turned to the jury itself - "the conscience of the community", justice and truth again...

Then, a soft attack on the prosecution...

Slowly, softening up the jurors, turning their attention away from the bare, gruesome facts, softly and gently sowing seeds of doubt and decency in the jurors minds.

As I said, if Paddock was alive, a good lawyer would have a very good chance, especially if James was running the prosecution!