| Author | Message | ||
     Hughlysses |
Scott Adams told a pretty compelling story of how it's completely plausible for an eye witness to a crime to give a 100% incorrect description of the event. He knows this based on his own experience. Mr. Adams used to be a bank teller in San Francisco, and their branch was routinely robbed several times per year. He was robbed at gunpoint once and gave a detailed description of the perpetrator and the sequence of events to the FBI within 30 minutes of when it happened. A day or two later, the FBI came back and asked him if he was SURE that's how it had gone down, and he confirmed that it was. They then showed him the surveillance camera footage of the robbery, which showed Mr. Adams being robbed by someone very different from the man he described. He was baffled, but had to admit it was true and that his recollections were completely inaccurate. According to Mr. Adams, this is a fairly common phenomena in these situations, and he suggests this provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for the apparent change in the description of events in the hotel that was put out by the authorities. Scott suggests the guard may have suffered the same sort of faulty recollections that he did. None of this is sure by any means, but it does provide a simple and logical explanation for how the story of the event could have changed significantly in the days since it happened without resorting to an official coverup. | ||
| Sifo |
As I've said earlier, eye witness accounts suck. This is why I have pretty much disregarded them in the multiple shooter theory of this event. Too easy to be fooled by echos, etc. The one piece that does intrigue me is the cabbie who recorded her thoughts about the fire coming from a new location, as you hear a very different rifle report on that same recording. Tie that with the analysis of the rifle rounds, showing a required second shooting position, and suddenly I'm really questioning the official story. I would love to see that analysis repeated by another party, and see if it backs up or refutes what was said. That analysis will either point to all shots from a single distance, or multiple. The physics doesn't leave much open to interpretation. | ||
| Aesquire |
Maybe different faces of the Hotel? | ||
| Sifo |
Maybe different faces of the Hotel? Just curious... Have you watched that video? What I'm talking about is all in the first 90 seconds. It's not a slight change in the sound. It goes from sounding quite distant to a new burst that is loud and crisp. I'm not going to say that it's impossible to be the same shooter out the other window, but I would be very surprised. I would expect echos might be quite different, especially dependent on where you are hearing it from. I wouldn't expect as much difference from the direct report though. Perhaps if you were in just the right area, you might be shielded from the direct report from on window, but not the other. It wouldn't be hard to pinpoint where the cabbie was for anyone familiar with the area. That still leaves the issue of the difference of the time between bullet impact and rifle report from one burst to the other. I hadn't watched any of the eye witness videos until the the one posted above by Mtnmason. I recognize that for anyone under fire for the first time in their lives, especially in an urban environment, pinpointing where shots are coming from is very difficult. I didn't realize that the police had reports of multiple shooters from hotels so far apart, complete with reports of people shot. Perhaps that just speaks to the confusion during the fog of war. That's one reason I find the analysis of the video taped shots from the event. You take the emotion out of it and follow what the science tells you. | ||
| Ourdee |
You can change the sound by moving the muzzle from the window back into the room. | ||
| Blake |
Different rifles, different locations, and what RD said. Have the specifics of the calibers/cartridges and actual ammunition used been released yet? | ||
| Sifo |
One more weird facet to a very weird event... Las Vegas guard Jesus Campos vanished after visiting urgent-care clinic, union leader says | ||
| Aesquire |
Gee, that's not suspicious at all, is it? | ||
| Ourdee |
Should have checked him for gun shot residue. Trust but verify. | ||
| Mtnmason |
If there were ever any doubt that the events surrounding the shooting involved a political cover-up, the fact that this guy completely disappears w/o explanation for a few days only moments before being scheduled to appear on Hannity, then suddenly pops up on the Ellen DeGeneres show, should remove any and all. The face on the left is the person who appeared on Ellen. The face on the right is a verifiable picture of the real Jesus Campos. You be the judge:  | ||
| Alchemy |
Yep, clearly the same person. Oh, wait, how could I have missed it... THE SHIRT IS CLEARLY DIFFERENT. | ||
| Aesquire |
Clark? | ||
| Torquehd |
ˇNo, es superhombre! | ||
| Redra65k |
Are they not the same person ? | ||
| Redra65k |
The internet “sarcasm” has eluded me this time | ||
| Mtnmason |
Are they not the same person ? It likely is. Note the similarity in nostrils. The odd thing to me is his whole disappearance prior to giving testimony on a real, albeit biased and opinionated, news program. Then he suddenly appears on Ellen? Another inconsistency I read about on another board was that during the ellen interview he states that he called in on his "radio" that he'd been shot at. Originally, he stated that he used his cell phone. ...something something semantics... | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/10/mark_s teyn_youre_entitled_to_be_a_conspiracy_nut_on_the_ vegas_massacre.html | ||
| Macbuell |
Did Ellen ask where Campos was for the last week? For any good journalist, that should be the very first question. | ||
| Macbuell |
I read an article about the interview. Not only did she not ask where he was the past week but he also said that interview would be his only public comments. In other words, we still have no idea what's going on. | ||
| Ratbuell |
Ellen is in with MGM. Campos appeared only with Ellen. In-house, so to speak. Coincidence? | ||
| Sifo |
Did Ellen ask where Campos was for the last week? For any good journalist, that should be the very first question. Well at least you didn't use "Ellen" and "journalist" in the same sentence. | ||
| Crusty |
Ellen is not a journalist. She is the host of her talk show. The more I read about this shooting, the screwier it gets. I don't think we'll ever know the truth behind it. I just feel bad for all the innocent people who were wounded or died. And I hope whoever was behind it burns in Hell. | ||
| Sifo |
The most straight forward explanation for this shooting I've heard, is actually pretty straight forward. A liberal wanted to shoot up a large group of conservatives. Kind of a copy cat of another recent mass shooting at a ball park. I don't think it's a theory that will be allowed to be investigated, much less reported. Other explanations just start getting far too difficult to believe. If the earlier mass shooter hadn't picked actual congress critters, I don't know if political motives would have ever been so easily accepted in that shooting. Personally, I'm at a point where I'm willing to accept this as a fairly obvious copy cat style shooting that fits the known facts, unless some other motive can be supported. | ||
| Mnscrounger |
Is it possible he only showed up on Ellen because Ellen's producers PAID him? He may have been contacted by a lawyer and an agent while still in his hospital room, who then told him he could milk his 15 minutes into a small fortune, (less their commission), with their help. I'm glad to see he didn't turn up a dead as a victim of a "robbery gone bad" or "suicide" with a black powder revolver, or tragic plane crash, or.... | ||
| Macbuell |
I think the Gun control theory makes the most sense. They say he had escape plans. If you have escape plans, why do you bring that many rifles unless you intend to leave them behind. No 2nd Amendment supporter that wanted to live would do that. So why leave them behind? To create a narrative around how bad guns are and to drive gun control. Someone else brought up the idea of how we (supporters of the 2nd Amendment) often say if someone with a CCP was around the violence could have been lessened. This episode hurt that concept. Maybe that, and the number of weapons, the ease of their purchase, their modification was his point and his motive? I think he had a psychotic breakdown but that he was very smart and a good planner and he came up with this psychotic idea of advancing the Gun Control cause. | ||
| Sifo |
I think the Gun control theory makes the most sense. They say he had escape plans. If you have escape plans, why do you bring that many rifles unless you intend to leave them behind. No 2nd Amendment supporter that wanted to live would do that. So why leave them behind? To create a narrative around how bad guns are and to drive gun control. Someone else brought up the idea of how we (supporters of the 2nd Amendment) often say if someone with a CCP was around the violence could have been lessened. This episode hurt that concept. Maybe that, and the number of weapons, the ease of their purchase, their modification was his point and his motive? I think he had a psychotic breakdown but that he was very smart and a good planner and he came up with this psychotic idea of advancing the Gun Control cause. The one problem I have with this theory, is that it lacks any evidence that he was in favor of gun control. Essentially, it's saying that this all makes sense by inserting these thoughts into the shooter. Thoughts that contradict the fact that he was a gun owner of several guns. Still, it's very much in line with what I'm saying, just with a slightly different liberal motive. Some things that support my theory... 1) Seen, and greeted by name on video at an anti-Trump rally. 2) The bulk of his weapons were purchased since Trump's election. 3) The stereotypical country music fan is conservative in their politics, as mentioned on air by several news people as this even unfolded. 4) Similar to the recent, politically motivated shooting where the victims were stuck in an enclosed area, with little chance for escape or cover. Did he have a psychotic breakdown? I would certainly lean towards saying yes. Did he have an escape plan? I have seen zero supporting evidence of this. Feel free to fill in anything I may have missed. Any escape plan seems pretty unlikely to succeed, baring running to a waiting helicopter on the roof. A ground floor exit would need to be expedited, but he was taking his sweet time during magazine changes. Then again, he was pretty f***ed in the head, so I wouldn't exactly say it's clear he didn't have an exit plan. | ||
| Macbuell |
I think he purposely concealed his motive. If Gun Control was his known motive the incident would be easily dismissed and he would be painted as another radical lefty. And his whole mission would have been destroyed. So he purposely and carefully kept his motive hidden. | ||
| Sifo |
Interesting thought about concealing his true motive. I think a good way of doing that is to provide a motive though. Hard to say. He was pretty f***ed in the head. | ||
| Aesquire |
Of the known facts, not official speculation or assertions with no evidence, like "escape plans", we can notice that in direct opposite reaction to Conservative and normal people who purchased guns in record numbers when Obama was elected and told his fans he would end gun ownership, for eight years! Then sales dropped when Obama left office in the apparent belief the threat to their rights was less. The alleged guy had a few guns on record, like many of both parties in that region. Then began a gun buying binge when Trump was elected. This is our major indication other than YouTube videos ( which may be faked or suppressed, depending on spin ) of the political angle. I'm not discounting any videos but not investing any weight yet in them. It's just circumstantial evidence, but it's as solid as any official statement. The other circumstantial evidence is the unwillingness to discuss motive in the media. Thus indicating a motive contrary to the Regressive agenda. You could assume that the media is protecting their money by not discussing the mood altering drugs, since Big Pharma is a major sponsor. Ditto with being protective of MGM. But that's just the Media slant. The FBI motive? Your guess. | ||
| Aesquire |
“Compos is the most significant eyewitness to the attack,” Glenn said on today’s show. His theory was that the Mandalay Bay Resort has something to hide for the sake of their business. “I think what they’re covering up is the hotel just really dropped the ball,” he said. Feel free to mock Glenn for being a conspiracy nut. ( although he was solid on the Mortgage Crisis, and far ahead of most of the pundits on Obama's ideology & history ) But simple CYA on the Hotel's part is as good a theory as any. Of course that's just a tiny part of the story. Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/10/19/why-have-polic e-given-us-3-timelines-no-motive-for-las-vegas-sho oting/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_ca mpaign=GBDAILY20171019&utm_content=Final&utm_term= Glenn%20Beck?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=conte ntcopy_link |
