Las Vegas Mass Shooting

[Thryleon]

Thryleon, are you talking about the cabbie footage supposedly showing muzzle flash from floors beneath the identified shooter (referred to in the link Flyboy provided)?  As one comment noted on that webpage, the same flashing light was apparent after the shooting finished and appears to be a flashing light inside the hotel. 

Maybe, I don't really know.  I saw a clip, and heard some audio.  Was it a cabbie?  Was it someone else?  I don't know.  Was it the same hotel?  Absolutely.  Like I stated, was it even a second shooter?  I don't know nut the audio I heard had two guns firing at once and like I said, perhaps it was simply an echo of the first gun.  All I am doing is raising a possibility that the story might be different to what we are being told.

Why do we need to question "the official version"?  Why not let the investigation wend its way slowly and methodically given this is the best way for law enforcement to proceed?  Why do we have to fill in gaps in our knowledge with conspiracy theories? 

Because like I stated in a previous post, I reject information I am given because I have seen far too many instances of being told lies and mistruths.  Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be my number one counter argument here.  Why am I like this?  Personally, I like to form my own opinion of circumstances rather than believe the rhetoric.  This is what I call keeping an open mind.  Another one that I can bring up here, is that the pentagon was not hit with a plane, but rather some sort of missile.  what that was, I cant say, but the facts point to the official story being wrong.  Then they go marching into the middle east causing trouble, and I always keep in mind that perhaps the USA is the aggressor in these circumstances, rather than simply "defending themselves".  Still, such is life.  I won't find out for sure either way, but if ideas were never challenged, we would all believe the world was flat wouldn't we??

Why would there be a 2nd shooter?  Why would that shooter have been much more concerned with staying under the radar than the other shooter?  Multiple shooters might be worthwhile if terrorists fear that a lone shooter may be apprehended or neutralised quickly.  Or if the aim is to work towards a big death toll.  But if the aim is terror, why would 100 kills be better than 58?  And surely the mythical back-up shooter would have been happy to simply watch without running any risks given that the 1st shooter was shooting for minutes?  Why didn't the 2nd shooter pick up the batton once the 1st shooter stopped firing?  There's no compelling logic that requires us to fill in the gaps in knowledge by creating a 2nd shooter.

I don't know, but to find the answer to these questions, you would have to understand the motive behind why this whole thing happened in the first place which might we wide and varied and largely not likely to yield results we will ever know for sure.  i.e. It might have been an assasination of one specific person and to dilute it by murdering another 100 odd people and pinning it on a fall guy might be how they get away with it. Or I might have an overactive imagination.

Perhaps the second shooter simply killed this guy, pinned the whole ordeal on him, and then has vanished into the night.  Free to murder again in his own time whilst this guy takes the blame and that means there is another unhinged person out there we should really be worried about.


Or maybe we should just take your word for it and wonder why on earth this person acted out like that, paint him as unhinged and pretend that there are not more threats to our safety out there?

Take your pick what you want to believe.  Ill keep my mind open for now and we will see where this ends up.

In the meantime ask yourself the following question.  By being so outright dismissive of an alternative truth, are you being like Galileo who is searching for the truth?  Or those who called him heretic and tried to squash his theory that the world was indeed round like he stated??