Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 14:57:47 GMT -5
Okay, fucking seriously? What reports? From who? Who is this woman? This sounds exactly like the sort of shaggy dog story you hear after every such event - "Someone's brother's cousin's girlfriend's pilates instructor said they heard someone warning someone that something really bad was going to happen just before something really bad happened! It's a conspiracy!" This part actually is a thing. I don't know how reliable this witness is (it sounds a whole lot like an embellishment to a story in order to sound more dramatic in front of a camera), but it was actually something a witness said. True. But Amadan is right that sometimes people just say this kind of shit (without being part of a plot), and sometimes witnesses embellish their memories after the fact. Pretty much any given day in NYC, someone is ranting on a street corner predicting mayhem. Sometimes mayhem hits. But safe to say there likely is no connection. And having lived in NYC during 9/11 and since, I've seen first-hand how people weave things into their memory of huge disasters that didn't actually happen that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 14:58:38 GMT -5
This part actually is a thing. I don't know how reliable this witness is (it sounds a whole lot like an embellishment to a story in order to sound more dramatic in front of a camera), but it was actually something a witness said. Color me skeptical. Without some pretty solid corroboration, I consider it far more likely that either (a) this woman didn't exist; or (b) she was a crazy woman who shouts the kinds of crazy shit crazy people do, and coincidentally something crazy happened soon after; than (c) she is somehow connected with the shooting or knew about it beforehand. Yep. This is also what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Oct 3, 2017 15:56:23 GMT -5
This part actually is a thing. I don't know how reliable this witness is (it sounds a whole lot like an embellishment to a story in order to sound more dramatic in front of a camera), but it was actually something a witness said. Color me skeptical. Without some pretty solid corroboration, I consider it far more likely that either (a) this woman didn't exist; or (b) she was a crazy woman who shouts the kinds of crazy shit crazy people do, and coincidentally something crazy happened soon after; than (c) she is somehow connected with the shooting or knew about it beforehand. 100% agreed - and the security firm working the event confirms that it's a false report. ETA: I never thought she was telling a true story (or if she was, that the person was actually involved). Just pointing out that the fact someone said it was not fake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 16:03:24 GMT -5
Unfortunately, we're gonna get all kinds of false and exaggerated reports, some in good faith and a lot that aren't.
We can all agree, I think, that the whole thing is incomprehensible right now. It's human to try to make sense of it. And fine, as long as we keep it in the realm of speculation and don't start sporting tin-foil hats.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 3, 2017 16:44:12 GMT -5
There's pictures showing up now of the shooter after the suicide, ick.
If they are genuine, shame on the leo who leaked them
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 3, 2017 17:31:03 GMT -5
This part actually is a thing. I don't know how reliable this witness is (it sounds a whole lot like an embellishment to a story in order to sound more dramatic in front of a camera), but it was actually something a witness said. True. But Amadan is right that sometimes people just say this kind of shit (without being part of a plot), and sometimes witnesses embellish their memories after the fact. Pretty much any given day in NYC, someone is ranting on a street corner predicting mayhem. Sometimes mayhem hits. But safe to say there likely is no connection. And having lived in NYC during 9/11 and since, I've seen first-hand how people weave things into their memory of huge disasters that didn't actually happen that way. Yes. And I'd bet there were many times in the past when someone in a crowd--whether a concert, sporting event, etc.--made a similar "you're all gonna die" type comment, and it just got forgotten after a while because nothing happened.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 3, 2017 18:24:39 GMT -5
Re: Stephen Paddock
Okay, we know that we don't know enough. But at this point in time, that seems strange to me. This guy wasn't living off the grid, yet there's precious little info on him. He seems to have had plenty of money, but where did it all come from? His brother is painting a picture of a totally normal guy, who wasn't in to politics, guns, or anything. But he had a LOT of guns. And he clearly knew how to use them. Plus, he seemed to have more than enough money to blow on gambling, as well. Then there's the now-lapsed pilot's license.
All of that suggests--imo--a less-than-legal source of income. Arms dealing? Drug dealing? Money laundering?
And none of this really explains what his motive might have been...
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 3, 2017 18:42:00 GMT -5
Re: Stephen Paddock Okay, we know that we don't know enough. But at this point in time, that seems strange to me. This guy wasn't living off the grid, yet there's precious little info on him. He seems to have had plenty of money, but where did it all come from? His brother is painting a picture of a totally normal guy, who wasn't in to politics, guns, or anything. But he had a LOT of guns. And he clearly knew how to use them. Plus, he seemed to have more than enough money to blow on gambling, as well. Then there's the now-lapsed pilot's license. All of that suggests--imo--a less-than-legal source of income. Arms dealing? Drug dealing? Money laundering? And none of this really explains what his motive might have been... AFAIK, he bought three guns, two rifles and a handgun, and he passed the background check all three times. Where the rest of the guns came from, no clue. Obviously, there's precious little info about the guy because he had no significant run-ins with either the police or the political establishment. That should be enough to convict him. Apparently he'd had a couple of businesses in the past plus some regular employment gigs a while back. He seemed to be good at gambling; it sounds like that was a source of income, not expense. And I have a "now-lapsed" pilot's license. Have you seen what insurance and lawsuits have done to purchase and rental rates for small planes? I see a lot of innuendo about this guy, but little to back it up so far. Nonetheless, he's already a "lone wolf" being painted as a marginal member of society based on a lot of nothing. I'm shocked they haven't started using his middle name all the time by now. These "lone wolf nut cases" always have three names.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 3, 2017 19:01:06 GMT -5
Trying to understand his motives is natural and understandable, but the link you posted was definitely suggesting (while claiming not to suggest it) that there was some larger, more sinister scheme in place. Framing it as if the combination of weapons, location, and timing couldn't possibly be just the work of one deranged killer with so-far inscrutable motives. I am seeing this elsewhere - people don't want to believe one guy went off his rocker and did an inexplicable thing, and it doesn't fit any conventional narratives, so they want to make up shit that does. You are not spreading information. You are spreading random speculation by people who know no more than you or I. I read it differently than you. Either way, we're in agreement that we don't know what happened. All I took from it was that this case has some parts that really don't makes sense compared to other mass shootings.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Oct 3, 2017 19:05:43 GMT -5
Wouldn't a "normal" guy be hanging out on some sort of message boards somewhere? Whatever his interest, say real estate, or flying his own plane? that sort of thing.
My brother has a lot of guns, and he's always hanging out on gun forums, and cop forums, and such things.
If he's "normal", I think he's out there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 3, 2017 19:14:58 GMT -5
Re: Stephen Paddock Okay, we know that we don't know enough. But at this point in time, that seems strange to me. This guy wasn't living off the grid, yet there's precious little info on him. He seems to have had plenty of money, but where did it all come from? His brother is painting a picture of a totally normal guy, who wasn't in to politics, guns, or anything. But he had a LOT of guns. And he clearly knew how to use them. Plus, he seemed to have more than enough money to blow on gambling, as well. Then there's the now-lapsed pilot's license. All of that suggests--imo--a less-than-legal source of income. Arms dealing? Drug dealing? Money laundering? And none of this really explains what his motive might have been... AFAIK, he bought three guns, two rifles and a handgun, and he passed the background check all three times. Where the rest of the guns came from, no clue. Obviously, there's precious little info about the guy because he had no significant run-ins with either the police or the political establishment. That should be enough to convict him. Apparently he'd had a couple of businesses in the past plus some regular employment gigs a while back. He seemed to be good at gambling; it sounds like that was a source of income, not expense. And I have a "now-lapsed" pilot's license. Have you seen what insurance and lawsuits have done to purchase and rental rates for small planes? I see a lot of innuendo about this guy, but little to back it up so far. Nonetheless, he's already a "lone wolf" being painted as a marginal member of society based on a lot of nothing. I'm shocked they haven't started using his middle name all the time by now. These "lone wolf nut cases" always have three names. I'm not sure I get your point. You're complaining that he's being painted as a lone wolf and marginal member of society? He KILLED 59 people and injured hundreds more. I don't know about anyone else, but I sure as shit hope he's a lone wolf... Regardless, people who spread around the kind of money he was spreading around tend to have pretty substantial paper trails, when their sources of income are all legal. And there's also the fact that his father was something of a big time criminal, as well. And the fact that he hopped around quite a bit. But as I said, this all merely suggests the idea--that he may be or may have been involved in criminal enterprises. It's certainly not a given. Still, I find his brother's story to be less-than-believable at this point in time. And the then there's his girlfriend/wife/whatever who has successfully placed herself in a position where she can't really be investigated (because there's nothing that suggests she is guilty of anything).
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 3, 2017 19:26:57 GMT -5
Yeah, a lot of the early info may prove to be very wrong and he might fit into a mold.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 5, 2017 11:36:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 5, 2017 14:09:57 GMT -5
|
|