quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Sheriff says Paddock might have been "radicalized."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10...ve-been-radicalized/

Meanwhile, ISIS doubled down on their claim that Paddock was a jihadi, identifying him as "Abu Abd al-Bar al-Amriki."

Umm, no:

quote:

Speaking to reporters, Lombardo said, “I want to understand the motivation that you described, okay, to prevent any future incidents, and, you know, did this person get radicalized unbeknownst to us? And we want to identify that source.”

He said nothing. Those words mean nothing. He said he wants to understand the guy's motivation. Well, no shit, Sherlock. You're the sheriff. But don't tell us what you want. Tell us what you know.
And he told us nothing. There's a reason for that- he knows nothing about the guy's motivation.

The shooter sent his girlfriend on a trip because he needed her out of the way. Would he go to Vegas under normal circumstances without his girlfriend? Of course not, but if she was out of the country...

Also, he wanted to give her money. Is he going to strap 100K to her body and see if she can make it through customs? Of course not. He wired it to her once she was overseas.

There's nothing complicated about any of this, it seems to me. He was insane and wanted to kill as many people as possible before he killed himself, and leave his mark on the world in the process.

But no, we get "WAS HE RADICALIZED??" and questions about his political leanings, in the face of a complete lack of any such evidence.

Come on

Oh, ISIS claimed responsibility? Yeah, that makes sense, if you were born yesterday.

Not to be argumentative, but in the spirit of an open discussion: I don't think the reporter said anything about radicalization, just "what was his motive?" So the sheriff brought in that highly charged word, and I think that might be significant.

Also, ISIS rarely takes credit for attacks unless they actually have in fact been behind the attack. There are only 2 such instances-- where they falsely took credit-- and one of the two is still in question. They doubled down on this claim about Paddock, and, again, I think that is significant.

What puzzles me about this discussion-- of possible ISIS involvement-- is that all I'm saying (and some others)-- is that this looks like it could be a carefully planned terrorist attack. Could it NOT be? Sure. I would not ridicule that possibility. I don't understand, under the circumstances, why the possibility of ISIS-connected terrorism is ridiculed. Again, not argumentative. I just don't understand that.

Concur. IS doesn't often falsely claim responsibility. To my knowledge it was only once, in the PI, which was a late add to their franchise. I can think of many examples where we were publicly and forcefully told this is NOT related to Muslim terrorism, only to have our authorities backtrack later on. This certainly doesn't appear to be anything except what is claimed: one diabolical psycho. However, the investigation is ongoing and these events are anomalous. At this time, anything is possible for a motive.

quote:

That he had so many in the room didn't make him any less deadly.

I did make him more deadly because he was firing full auto (with the bump stock). He wore a glove for the heat, which quickly becomes intense, and when a barrel got too hot to keep firing, he just dropped the weapon and picked up another.

^^^^
Quick correction, he was not firing "full auto" he was just firing a semiautomatic very quickly. A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic to full automatic any more than my trigger finger does (if I had Jerry Miculek's finger).

We need to be very careful not to let the speed at which bullets leave the barrel define the operating definition of a firearm or we will be in a world of hurt. The law has a very clear definition of full automatic and semiautomatic and a bump stock does not fall into the former.

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:


Valium is not an antidepressant.

To be specific, Paddock was on Diazepam, first marketed as Valium.

From Wikipedia --

Common side effects include sleepiness and trouble with coordination. Serious side effects are rare. They include suicide, decreased breathing, and an increased risk of seizures if used too frequently in those with epilepsy. Occasionally excitement or agitation may occur. Long term use can result in tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms on dose reduction. Abrupt stopping after long-term use can be potentially dangerous. After stopping, cognitive problems may persist for six months or longer.

However classified, it can be a problem.

Taxi cab video

Ok here is a full video from the taxi cab driver for you to listen to and watch

Things to note gun fire close by then far away. I at first well that was just an echo.

But if you keep listening to it you hen first hear shots in the distance then shots close by. Opposite of what would happen in an echo situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:
Taxi cab video

Ok here is a full video from the taxi cab driver for you to listen to and watch

Things to note gun fire close by then far away. I at first well that was just an echo.

But if you keep listening to it you hen first hear shots in the distance then shots close by. Opposite of what would happen in an echo situation.

Or he started taking the video after the first shots were fired and only recorded the echo of the first shots. Obviously, he started the video after it started to happen, unless he had foreknowledge the attack was going to happen. Hmm, I'll bet he's one of them...

Some of the media and politicians are getting more quiet about the massacre.

Something is coming out about the shooter in the coming days.
My thinking is evidence will emerge that he is an avid and known anti Trumper.

Wait and watch.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:
Taxi cab video

Ok here is a full video from the taxi cab driver for you to listen to and watch

Things to note gun fire close by then far away. I at first well that was just an echo.

But if you keep listening to it you hen first hear shots in the distance then shots close by. Opposite of what would happen in an echo situation.

Or he started taking the video after the first shots were fired and only recorded the echo of the first shots. Obviously, he started the video after it started to happen, unless he had foreknowledge the attack was going to happen. Hmm, I'll bet he's one of them...

Did you listen to it? The video is constant

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:
I at this point in time I will not lock into just one shooter or multiple shooters. As an investigator tunnel vision is not your friend.

But video is. Enough time has elapsed that I would venture to say that ALL video from the hotel has been sifted through at the time of the event.

If there had been anyone leaving the room, evidence of other rooms being involved, anything, we'd be hearing noise of the FBI serving search warrants here or there. Or BOLO's for more "persons of interest". That hasn't happened.



This type of investigation is the super bowl for those involved. It isn't just one guy working this. It is hundreds of state, local, and federal investigators.

You can't throw a dead cat in Vegas without hitting a video camera.

My questions is this: how did this guy manage to install his own surveillance equipment in the hotel without being seen either live or via security reviews of footage? (assuming that the info relayed on the surveillance equipment is legit and not BS)

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:
Some of the media and politicians are getting more quiet about the massacre.

Something is coming out about the shooter in the coming days.
My thinking is evidence will emerge that he is an avid and known anti Trumper.

Wait and watch.

Won't matter. In their eyes, it's the guns' fault. Not the shooter.

quote:

But if you keep listening to it you hen first hear shots in the distance then shots close by. Opposite of what would happen in an echo situation.

that could be a product of him shooting out of two different windows and their proximity to the cab.

I think there was one shooter and that video is pretty scary to listen to.

quote:

Some of the media and politicians are getting more quiet about the massacre.
Something is coming out about the shooter in the coming days.
My thinking is evidence will emerge that he is an avid and known anti Trumper.

So they will suddenly drop their hatred of the guns... in favor of their hatred of Trump?
Some, on social media, will celebrate the asshole as a hero.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:
I at this point in time I will not lock into just one shooter or multiple shooters. As an investigator tunnel vision is not your friend.

But video is. Enough time has elapsed that I would venture to say that ALL video from the hotel has been sifted through at the time of the event.

If there had been anyone leaving the room, evidence of other rooms being involved, anything, we'd be hearing noise of the FBI serving search warrants here or there. Or BOLO's for more "persons of interest". That hasn't happened.



This type of investigation is the super bowl for those involved. It isn't just one guy working this. It is hundreds of state, local, and federal investigators.

You can't throw a dead cat in Vegas without hitting a video camera.

My questions is this: how did this guy manage to install his own surveillance equipment in the hotel without being seen either live or via security reviews of footage? (assuming that the info relayed on the surveillance equipment is legit and not BS)

Camera on fish eye peep hole, and on the cart. If you look at the pictures of he cart outside the door you will see a wire going under the door. He most likely had the camera ready on the cart he had in his room and pushed it out just before he started shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by ScorpionBoy:

quote:

But if you keep listening to it you hen first hear shots in the distance then shots close by. Opposite of what would happen in an echo situation.

that could be a product of him shooting out of two different windows and their proximity to the cab.

I think there was one shooter and that video is pretty scary to listen to.

I don’t believe the 30 ft of distance from the two windows would make that much difference in sound. The taxi was near the Mandalay mezzanine and under it. I would be checking the mezzanine roof for casings, but if I was part of a group and wanted it to look like a lone shooter, I would have a back pack rigged to catch my casings.

quote:

My questions is this: how did this guy manage to install his own surveillance equipment in the hotel without being seen either live or via security reviews of footage? (assuming that the info relayed on the surveillance equipment is legit and not BS)

This thread seems to exclude some common sense. No offense, but it's simple.

Immediately before he started this atrocity, he placed a camera or two immediately outside of the suite's door, and/or on the food cart that was immediately outside the second (standard) room he rented. The cameras could have been wireless or wired, and they were most likely smaller than a deck of cards. They were probably pointed down the hallway, and toward the staircase door immediately outside the suite's double door. If you set it up in the room, you could then place two cameras outside in less than 15 seconds.

It would be very difficult - if not impossible - for security to notice live and react to ... unless they were staring at the monitor with the camera showing a great view of the room door AND the video guy knowing what he was looking for.

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:

Did you listen to it? The video is constant

Yes, I did. Twice.

You don't know when he started the video. I'm saying he didn't start the video before the first shots were fired. How could he unless he knew when it was going to happen? He wasn't just driving around taking video and happened to capture the whole thing. If you accept that, then you can't say the first shots you hear on the video are not echoes and thus muted. In subsequent bursts of fire, you can hear the shots and their muted echoes fairly clearly.

timeline

10:09 P.M. - 10:18 P.M.

Stephen Paddock fires on and off into Route 91 festival crowd from his Mandalay Bay hotel room. LVMPD report Paddock fired more than a dozen volleys of gunfire for nine to 11 minutes.

10:19 P.M.

Gunfire from Paddock's room ceases.

LVMPD said at one point, a Mandalay Bay security guard approached the room where Paddock was firing from and was shot through the door. The guard was able to provide additional info, such as room number, to authorities.

Patrol officers on the scene wait for the SWAT team to arrive to take any further action.
The situation is changed from an active shooter to barricade situation. Paddock is considered isolated in the hotel room. The floor has been evacuated of guests.

SWAT team makes the decision on when it's appropriate to enter the room. While there was a delay there was no risk, LVMPD said.

LVMPD Undersheriff Kevin McMahill also confirmed initial reports regarding cameras being located at the scene inside the hotel. McMahill said two cameras were discovered in the hallway outside Paddock's room and another was found in the peephole of the room's door.

McMahill added that photos leaked to the media showing the scene inside Paddock's room - including weapons found inside - were from the scene. An investigation has been opened to discover how the photos were leaked.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/timel...-vegas-mass-shooting

quote:

Originally posted by steve495:
This thread seems to exclude some common sense. No offense, but it's simple.

Immediately before he started this atrocity, he placed a camera or two immediately outside of the suite's door, and/or on the food cart that was immediately outside the second (standard) room he rented. The cameras could have been wireless or wired, and they were most likely smaller than a deck of cards. They were probably pointed down the hallway, and toward the staircase door immediately outside the suite's double door. If you set it up in the room, you could then place two cameras outside in less than 15 seconds.

It would be very difficult - if not impossible - for security to notice live and react to ... unless they were staring at the monitor with the camera showing a great view of the room door AND the video guy knowing what he was looking for.

Yes.

And does Mandalay have cameras in every hallway? Elevators and elevator lobbies sure but I know some hotels don't place cameras in hallways due to privacy concerns. Just a thought.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by Ozarkwoods:

Did you listen to it? The video is constant

Yes, I did. Twice.

You don't know when he started the video. I'm saying he didn't start the video before the first shots were fired. How could he unless he knew when it was going to happen? He wasn't just driving around taking video and happened to capture the whole thing. If you accept that, then you can't say the first shots you hear on the video are not echoes and thus muted. In subsequent bursts of fire, you can hear the shots and their muted echoes fairly clearly.

The difference in volume of the report is not just at the beginning it’s through out the video, and the taxis cab driver identified herself as a female. You can see that the he video is continuously running, you will hear shots from a distance then you will hear shots fired close by.

Sorry, which theory are we working on now?