Mass shooting in Las Vegas, 2/10/2017

[Heaven Swan]

[

Stickdog wrote:

Well, basically everyone I have discussed this with here and in real life has absolutely no problem accepting the idea that an old, comfortable individual would somehow decide to put senseless premeditated mass murder and suicide on his bucket list. Nobody from JackRiddler to you to my significant other to every talking head on television or conspira-tainment seems to have any questions whatsoever concerning this aspect of the event.

In fact, even among all the people questioning this event from every possible angle, I have been an exclusive army of one in my questioning the likelihood of the Paddock's profile. And in every statement I make to this effect, I seem to rub everyone I discuss this with the wrong way. Even among those who are strongly disinclined to believe the LVPD/FBI's narrative on this event, I am the lone voice who has advanced the strangely unpopular argument that the very idea of a single comfortable, old individual committing (at least seemingly completely) motiveless mass murder of total strangers and then suicide is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence.

No one even seem willing to entertain the idea that such historically unique behavior should defy belief. ....

Stick, Stick, you need to get out more.

So—you’re “an army of one.” No one else shares your inability to comprehend that a man like Paddock could commit such a vile atrocity. Hmmm. Have you considered that there may be something you don’t quite get or some faulty reasoning on your part?

If you’re a true student of human nature and a bonfide conspiracy researcher I have a proposal for you—get up from behind the computer and go out and do some field work.

Here are 3 suggestions

1). Start befriending or spending time with wealthy, financially “comfortable” people. I guarantee that once you’ve gotten to know them you’ll begin to understand how having a lot of money doesn’t resolve unhealthy obsessions, fixation on seeing people as objects, sexism, racism, and a whole host of other problems, that having money doesn’t automatically translate into a “comfortable life.” In fact having great wealth can even create certain problems. People who have experienced both poverty and wealth report that having lots of money can lead to being unfocused.

2) Befriend or interview some cult or MK Ultra survivors. They don’t often talk about the gory details of the horrifically violent and mindbogglingly sadistic abuses they suffered, but if you come from a place of compassion and speak one on one they may open up. Be sure and ask them about the socioeconomics of the perpetrators of the torturous °programming° they were subjected to. How could comfortable, highly successful doctors, professors, business and military men commit such atrocities on a regular basis? Try asking what they’ve observed about these pillars of society.

3) If the first two suggestions are too logistically difficult you could try this. Do your best to get into the state of the °beginners mind.° Throw out everything you think you know about men and women, and, coming from a place of curiosity and compassion, ask women you know to share their experiences with regard to being demeaned, devalued, harassed and abused. If you can get really empathetic you may catch a glimpse of what it's like to live under the rein of sexual terror that passes for life today for women and you might begin to form an idea of why a guy like Paddock might set off red flags and warning bells in the minds of women, (and men too).

[stickdog99]

Thanks for the highly helpful personal advice!

Now, who is the closest previous historical analogue to Stephen Paddock? What is his name? Care to share that information with all of us?

[Heaven Swan]

Thanks for the highly helpful personal advice!

Now, who is the closest previous historical analogue to Stephen Paddock? What is his name? Care to share that information with all of us?

Doesn’t matter. Creativity exists even among deeply deranged people. Even if the strict specifics are a first, so what?

The important considerations are things like the Homeland Security drill that Pele’s Daughter mentioned upthread.

A vital question to discuss would be—if there was participation by deep state actors in this mass shooting, why? Why would they do such a thing? What is their larger game plan? That is a topic worth hashing out on RI but so far none of the hypothesized motivations make sense, much less your nonsensical and distasteful defense of a probabile mass murderer.

But SLAD says you’re a stand up guy... so I threw out some suggestions that might help you widen your mental horizons.

[minime]

Thanks for the highly helpful personal advice!

Now, who is the closest previous historical analogue to Stephen Paddock? What is his name? Care to share that information with all of us?

Doesn’t matter. Creativity exists even among deeply deranged people. Even if the strict specifics are a first, so what?

Especially if the motivation is to be first and/or most--typical masculine traits.

Impotence to all men!!! Death to chakra two!

[Burnt Hill]

The statistical unlikeliness of a young man like the one pictured above committing the crime that occurred is/was off the charts.
It was a local event for me, my introduction of sorts to the great capacity for human malignancy.
One could easily say this shouldn't have happened, .
But it did -

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/17/nyreg ... -town.html

My point being if a child can commit a crime such as this,
why would someone be surprised an adult like Paddock could commit a crime such as that?

[MacCruiskeen]

[

Stickdog wrote:

Well, basically everyone I have discussed this with here and in real life has absolutely no problem accepting the idea that an old, comfortable individual would somehow decide to put senseless premeditated mass murder and suicide on his bucket list. Nobody from JackRiddler to you to my significant other to every talking head on television or conspira-tainment seems to have any questions whatsoever concerning this aspect of the event.

In fact, even among all the people questioning this event from every possible angle, I have been an exclusive army of one in my questioning the likelihood of the Paddock's profile. And in every statement I make to this effect, I seem to rub everyone I discuss this with the wrong way. Even among those who are strongly disinclined to believe the LVPD/FBI's narrative on this event, I am the lone voice who has advanced the strangely unpopular argument that the very idea of a single comfortable, old individual committing (at least seemingly completely) motiveless mass murder of total strangers and then suicide is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence.

No one even seem willing to entertain the idea that such historically unique behavior should defy belief. ....

Stick, Stick, you need to get out more.

So—you’re “an army of one.” No one else shares your inability to comprehend that a man like Paddock could commit such a vile atrocity. Hmmm. Have you considered that there may be something you don’t quite get or some faulty reasoning on your part?

If you’re a true student of human nature and a bonfide conspiracy researcher I have a proposal for you—get up from behind the computer and go out and do some field work.

Here are 3 suggestions

1). Start befriending or spending time with wealthy, financially “comfortable” people. I guarantee that once you’ve gotten to know them you’ll begin to understand how having a lot of money doesn’t resolve unhealthy obsessions, fixation on seeing people as objects, sexism, racism, and a whole host of other problems, that having money doesn’t automatically translate into a “comfortable life.” In fact having great wealth can even create certain problems. People who have experienced both poverty and wealth report that having lots of money can lead to being unfocused.

2) Befriend or interview some cult or MK Ultra survivors. They don’t often talk about the gory details of the horrifically violent and mindbogglingly sadistic abuses they suffered, but if you come from a place of compassion and speak one on one they may open up. Be sure and ask them about the socioeconomics of the perpetrators of the torturous °programming° they were subjected to. How could comfortable, highly successful doctors, professors, business and military men commit such atrocities on a regular basis? Try asking what they’ve observed about these pillars of society.

3) If the first two suggestions are too logistically difficult you could try this. Do your best to get into the state of the °beginners mind.° Throw out everything you think you know about men and women, and, coming from a place of curiosity and compassion, ask women you know to share their experiences with regard to being demeaned, devalued, harassed and abused. If you can get really empathetic you may catch a glimpse of what it's like to live under the rein of sexual terror that passes for life today for women and you might begin to form an idea of why a guy like Paddock might set off red flags and warning bells in the minds of women, (and men too).

Congratulations. With that post you just won a gold medal at the Pharisaic Olympics. 10/10 for self-righteousness, 10/10 for unctuousness, 10/10 for conceit, and a respectable 9/10 for irrelevance. Or was it meant to be a joke? It is almost funny. At any rate, it tells us precisely nothing whatsoever about Stephen Paddock -- on the contrary. It is a smokescreen, dense and evil-smelling.

"I knew Stephen Paddock as a kind, caring, quiet man. I loved him and hoped for a quiet future together with him.

"He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10 ... dock-kind/

But what does Marilou Danley's opinion matter? She is, after all, just a woman. Merely a woman who actually knew him. She is not, unlike you, The (Self-Appointed) Voice of Womanhood Per Se, so her opinion of the man she loved ain't worth shit. He must have, like, hypnotized her or sumthin'.

coming from a place of curiosity and compassion

LOL. First time I've heard a high horse called that.

Stick, Stick, you need to get out more.

So—you’re “an army of one.” No one else shares your inability to comprehend that a man like Paddock could commit such a vile atrocity. Hmmm. Have you considered that there may be something you don’t quite get or some faulty reasoning on your part?

Hmmm. Swan, Swan, you need to stop bumping into walls. "Faulty reasoning", forsooth... Have you considered that your own performance of reasoning here barely rivals that of a Roomba? (And Roombas are at least not full of themselves, just full of dust.) Your three numbered paragraphs are, in order of succession: 1) irrelevant and deliberately point-missing; 2) irrelevant and deliberately point-missing; 3) irrelevant and deliberately point-missing. Your entire MO is: "Throw enough shit at Paddock and some of it will eventually stick". That's got nothing to with reason, logic, evidence, or an honest concern with the truth; but it will, admittedly, get you everywhere in certain other fields, including but not restricted to journalism.

By the way, stickdog99 is by no means an army of one. I share his concerns 100%, as do many other honest and rational people, both on this board and elsewhere.

[Burnt Hill]

Yes but stick and swan were arguing about the likelihood of
someone with the Paddock "profile" having the capacity to commit such a crime.
As though a person like the one we know as Paddock,
and not necessarily Paddock himself (considering the unknowns),
could have committed the crime that occurred.

[MacCruiskeen]

Yes but stick and swan were arguing about the likelihood of
someone with the Paddock "profile" having the capacity to commit such a crime.

No, she was wilfully misinterpreting his every word. His use of the word "comfortable" for instance, quite obviously to mean "financially secure", she twisted to mean "perfectly happy in every way", so that she could then proceed to lecture him de haut en bas on the amazing fact that some rich men are unpleasant or unhappy or both, as if Howard Hughes, Elvis Presley, William Randolph Hearst and Michael Jackson (to name but four) were not household names.

As though a person like the one we know as Paddock,
and not necessarily Paddock himself (considering the unknowns)
could have committed the crime that occurred.

Stickdog has gone out of his way more than once to make it clear that he is not denying the possibility that SP could have dunnit. Of course he is not denying that possibility. Nor am I. We are asking to see the evidence for SP's guilt, evidence that MGM Casinos, the Sheriff of Las Vegas, and the FBI are keeping very carefully to themselves. If it even exists.



^^Why should we trust those people, especially when they keep contradicting themselves and each other? (It's my strong impression that most of them have penises, by the way.)

[Burnt Hill]

Yes but stickdog has also argued repeatedly that his age and wealth are limiting factors in the probability of this crime happening as so far described. That is Swan's (I think sorta), and my main disagreement with stick.

[Burnt Hill]

Good point but this investigation isn't over we cant call conspiracy yet.

We are asking to see the evidence for SP's guilt, evidence that MGM Casinos, the Sheriff of Las Vegas, and the FBI are keeping very carefully to themselves.

[minime]

Stick and Mac,

What is your take on Paddock's Blackstone/Ogden rentals in the months before the shooting? I notice that there has been only one mention in passing (by slad, and only a link[edit: also 82_28]) of those earlier activities. I have to admit it diminishes the likelihood of drug/gun, sting operation gone bad.

[MacCruiskeen]

minime, we're told that he had previously booked rooms in two hotels that overlooked, or were at least fairly close to, open-air concert venues. But so what? So what, exactly? It's bullshit. It's ridiculous, and it's entirely typical of the way these cases are constructed in the media. A drip-drip-drip of insinuation and innuendo, as if there were something suspicious about staying in hotels per se, or about liking music per se. No one, not even the oh-so-trustworthy FBI, has claimed that Stephen Paddock committed, prepared, planned, or even thought about any crimes whatsoever in either of those hotels, and they have certainly produced absolutely no evidence that he ever did so. Yet again, there's no there there.

Also:

The most significant might have been in Chicago, where Paddock reserved space in the Blackstone, a 335-room high-rise hotel overlooking the Lollapalooza music festival in August, according to two people familiar with the investigation. A hotel representative said someone reserved a room under Paddock’s name but did not stay in the hotel during the festival.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... bc34817dd3

A giant nothingburger.

[Burnt Hill]

A hotel representative said someone reserved a room under Paddock’s name but did not stay in the hotel during the festival.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... bc34817dd3



A giant nothingburger.

Yeah but wait a minute. It may not be nothing depending on who that "someone" was.
And if it was made by Paddock, it would go in the pile of circumstantial evidence where quantity matters.

[Heaven Swan]

With this post you have won a gold medal for projection. Also for pettiness, derailing and bringing down the tenor of this thread to a record low.

Given your history of haranguing myself and others, for the good of this discussion forum, I ask that you stop commenting on your perceptions of me and my motivations and I ask for the support of the moderator and other posters in this.

You’re of course free to comment on the topic at hand but leave me out of it.



—I’d also like to clarify that when I wrote “an army of one” I was directly quoting what StickDog wrote and said about how he felt about himself, not what I was accusing him of being.

[

Stickdog wrote:

Well, basically everyone I have discussed this with here and in real life has absolutely no problem accepting the idea that an old, comfortable individual would somehow decide to put senseless premeditated mass murder and suicide on his bucket list. Nobody from JackRiddler to you to my significant other to every talking head on television or conspira-tainment seems to have any questions whatsoever concerning this aspect of the event.

In fact, even among all the people questioning this event from every possible angle, I have been an exclusive army of one in my questioning the likelihood of the Paddock's profile. And in every statement I make to this effect, I seem to rub everyone I discuss this with the wrong way. Even among those who are strongly disinclined to believe the LVPD/FBI's narrative on this event, I am the lone voice who has advanced the strangely unpopular argument that the very idea of a single comfortable, old individual committing (at least seemingly completely) motiveless mass murder of total strangers and then suicide is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence.

No one even seem willing to entertain the idea that such historically unique behavior should defy belief. ....

Stick, Stick, you need to get out more.

So—you’re “an army of one.” No one else shares your inability to comprehend that a man like Paddock could commit such a vile atrocity. Hmmm. Have you considered that there may be something you don’t quite get or some faulty reasoning on your part?

If you’re a true student of human nature and a bonfide conspiracy researcher I have a proposal for you—get up from behind the computer and go out and do some field work.

Here are 3 suggestions

1). Start befriending or spending time with wealthy, financially “comfortable” people. I guarantee that once you’ve gotten to know them you’ll begin to understand how having a lot of money doesn’t resolve unhealthy obsessions, fixation on seeing people as objects, sexism, racism, and a whole host of other problems, that having money doesn’t automatically translate into a “comfortable life.” In fact having great wealth can even create certain problems. People who have experienced both poverty and wealth report that having lots of money can lead to being unfocused.

2) Befriend or interview some cult or MK Ultra survivors. They don’t often talk about the gory details of the horrifically violent and mindbogglingly sadistic abuses they suffered, but if you come from a place of compassion and speak one on one they may open up. Be sure and ask them about the socioeconomics of the perpetrators of the torturous °programming° they were subjected to. How could comfortable, highly successful doctors, professors, business and military men commit such atrocities on a regular basis? Try asking what they’ve observed about these pillars of society.

3) If the first two suggestions are too logistically difficult you could try this. Do your best to get into the state of the °beginners mind.° Throw out everything you think you know about men and women, and, coming from a place of curiosity and compassion, ask women you know to share their experiences with regard to being demeaned, devalued, harassed and abused. If you can get really empathetic you may catch a glimpse of what it's like to live under the rein of sexual terror that passes for life today for women and you might begin to form an idea of why a guy like Paddock might set off red flags and warning bells in the minds of women, (and men too).

Congratulations. With that post you just won a gold medal at the Pharisaic Olympics. 10/10 for self-righteousness, 10/10 for unctuousness, 10/10 for conceit, and a respectable 9/10 for irrelevance. Or was it meant to be a joke? It is almost funny. At any rate, it tells us precisely nothing whatsoever about Stephen Paddock -- on the contrary. It is a smokescreen, dense and evil-smelling.

"I knew Stephen Paddock as a kind, caring, quiet man. I loved him and hoped for a quiet future together with him.

"He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10 ... dock-kind/

But what does Marilou Danley's opinion matter? She is, after all, just a woman. Merely a woman who actually knew him. She is not, unlike you, The (Self-Appointed) Voice of Womanhood Per Se, so her opinion of the man she loved ain't worth shit. He must have, like, hypnotized her or sumthin'.

coming from a place of curiosity and compassion

LOL. First time I've heard a high horse called that.

Stick, Stick, you need to get out more.

So—you’re “an army of one.” No one else shares your inability to comprehend that a man like Paddock could commit such a vile atrocity. Hmmm. Have you considered that there may be something you don’t quite get or some faulty reasoning on your part?

Hmmm. Swan, Swan, you need to stop bumping into walls. "Faulty reasoning", forsooth... Have you considered that your own performance of reasoning here barely rivals that of a Roomba? (And Roombas are at least not full of themselves, just full of dust.) Your three numbered paragraphs are, in order of succession: 1) irrelevant and deliberately point-missing; 2) irrelevant and deliberately point-missing; 3) irrelevant and deliberately point-missing. Your entire MO is: "Throw enough shit at Paddock and some of it will eventually stick". That's got nothing to with reason, logic, evidence, or an honest concern with the truth; but it will, admittedly, get you everywhere in certain other fields, including but not restricted to journalism.

By the way, stickdog99 is by no means an army of one. I share his concerns 100%, as do many other honest and rational people, both on this board and elsewhere.

[LolaB]

MacC wrote:

By the way, stickdog99 is by no means an army of one. I share his concerns 100%, as do many other honest and rational people, both on this board and elsewhere.

Exactly! Being a long time lurker and rare poster, having read all 80 pages of this thread, I very much appreciate stickdog's prolific contribution to this board. Here is my personal opinion on this case. Knowing everything we have learned so far I feel that the probability that SP acted alone like we are told is about 1%. Most likely it was a false flag / strategy of tension type event.

Cui bono? Remains to be seen. In the meantime, keep up the good work everyone and party on.

much appreciation