A lone gunman with no motive was solely responsible for the murders.
From the beginning that’s been the official narrative.
But those pesky cellphone videos in which simultaneous fire from at least two weapons, with different rates of fire, can be heard.
A lone gunman with no motive was solely responsible for the murders.
But two shooting positions.
A lone gunman with no motive was solely responsible for the murders, using bump-fired ARs.
But simultaneous fire from at least two weapons, with different rates of fire, can be heard. Bump-fire stocks don’t work that way. It takes two hands. You need an extra pair of hands to bump-fire a second weapon at the same time.
Now, if bump-fire stocks didn’t require the continued use of a trigger finger, playing two-gun commando might be possible. Perhaps that explains why the feds are making exactly that false claim in their “Bump-Stock Type Device” proposed rule.
So I’ve always doubted the official narrative. Without some serious elaboration, a lone shooter makes no sense.
What else doesn’t make sense? The data dumps that the court finally made the cops do. Dumbass redactions. Bodycam video with the timestamps cropped out, so that it is impossible to create an accurate timeline of events. I can see that; when they settle on a final story, they can tell us whatever sequence they need to support the official report.
But some of the other data that makes it out…
One shooter, but he had two shooting positions, each with a computer to monitor cameras.
One shooter, but room service receipts indicate multiple people eating.
One shooter, but booking records indicating four people registered to the room.
One shooter, but a scoped bolt-action rifle for the shooter and a spotting scope for… a spotter? A sheet of precision ballistics calculations for bump-fired rifles with missing sights? To hose down a crowd of tens of thousands?*
Why is information, that directly contradicts the narrative, being released? Is this much accidental, or is it deliberate? If deliberate, is it a whistleblower, or some clever scheme?
Should I be watching for mysterious deaths among the redaction staff?
A lone gunman needs a motive, however crazy it might be. The cops told us the shooter was depressed by major financial difficulties. Except the released data says that, not only had he apparently paid off all outstanding debts, but he was wiring tens of thousands of dollars around the world. And now the FBI has locked down the shooter’s bank accounts, keeping even the court-appointed estate accountant from seeing so much as the balances.
The shooter shot himself in the head before the cops got into the room, but one police statement describes an officer entering the room and seeing the shooter kill himself.
One officer says he was on the 31st floor during the shooting. A Mandalay Bay security official says that officer was with him on the 32nd floor during the shooting.
A video shows the officers in the shooter’s suite being told told to get out when they’ve barely finished clearing it. Were they not supposed to see something? Or was it as innocuous as not wanting them to contaminate the crime scene before the forensics team went over it?
And just today I find this:
‘CAMERAS OFF’: NEW VIDEO SHOWS VEGAS SHOOTING STRIKE TEAM BEING TOLD TO TURN OFF BODY CAMS
A large dump of video taken from 28 different body cameras was released this week. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, most of the videos had no time stamps, but they were taken at some point during the response to Stephen Paddock carrying out the massacre.Four of the videos in this massive dump of footage show officers who are part of a strike team assembling near the Mandalay Bay Casino. According to the chatter captured on the video, the strike team is prepping to enter the hotel.
“Officers are waiting. They’re waiting,” says a male voice off screen. “Officers are waiting to get in there.”
As police stand in line waiting to enter the hotel, multiple body cameras show a female officer walking down the rows, instructing the officers to turn off their cameras.
“Cameras are off? Cameras off? Cameras are off?” she says.
An officer repeats “Camera is off,” and each video ends.
This isn’t a case of officers forgetting to turn the cameras on. They were on. And then they were ordered to turn them off.
According to their body camera policy, once the officer’s camera is activated, it should continue recording unless there is a reasonable exception.
As the Journal reports, exceptions include if the event is “of a sensitive nature,” such as the sexual assault of a child; if the event has concluded prior to an officer’s arrival; or if an officer determines the recording must be stopped, “based on clearly articulable reasons.”
What’s more, and what clearly did not happen in this footage, is that the department policy states, “Officers must state the specific reason(s) they are turning off their cameras before doing so.”
What did someone know — in advance — that officers should not record? Why? How?
Already, it’s almost impossible to tell which conflicting “facts” really are facts. And I see no reason to believe the final official report, based upon these facts.
* Calculations, a scoped bolt-action rifle, and spotter’s scope suggest a specific target that must be struck accurately. Those calculations would require knowing — accurately — one’s elevation and range to target. What I have not seen in the evidence list is a range-finder. That — and calculations in the first place — suggest an experienced long-range shooter who can confidently use scope reticles to estimate range. nothing in the alleged shooter’s bio indicate such experience. One of the other people who weren’t in the lone shooter’s room?
It would be nice if they’d release ballistics data on who was shot with what. If I could believe it.
Random Acts of Gibberish 