If there is any conspiracy it is all around protecting the liability of the Hotel, or the police. Thats it! No 2nd shooter, no government or secret society involvement. Just one crazy paranoid SOB.
This could well be the case. A lot of political pressure is possible, considering all the casinos will lose business over an incident like this, over what people might consider excessive surveillance in the aftermath (it might stay in Vegas but will the video go viral?).
Either there was a second shooter ---or there wasn't.
Yep, witnesses can get it wrong, and sound can do funny things around buildings. Echoes can make it sound like the noise from one place is coming from another direction entirely and moving even a few feet can change the apparent aspect angle of the source. (I have personally experienced that effect where rocks were eroded to form a natural parabolic reflector, while walking on a trail in Western Virginia. The fellow walking behind me suddenly sounded like he was in front of me, which led to the discovery of the rock formation).
There was also an account of a ground level shooter(s), by the lady who, unwounded, suddenly died,
http://realfarmacy.com/las-vegas-witness-dead/ Those accounts have been scrubbed from the articles about her.
Think about that. Media articles are already being scrubbed rather than updated, and ones I have returned to have been sanitized without any notation that they were edited or updated. Statements that people heard multiple shooters have evaporated in a cloud of discarded electrons. Whatever the cause, a lady who had enough stature among her peers to be listened to suddenly died and her accounts disappeared down the memory hole. If site acoustics explain the sound of multiple shooters, then publish the explanation. Removing prior accounts only adds to the conspiracy stew.
In the meantime, there are those clamoring to rid us of yet another legal modification to their arms people may make, to send the bump stock the way of the drop-in auto sear, including, to my personal vexation, the NRA.
I understand that with an investigation, things which initially appear one way turn out to be another. That is why we have investigations-- to find out what is the truth, and expose misconceptions, explain the disparities in testimony, which should be able to be done rationally and reasonably.
Physical evidence should support the narrative, and should lead to the conclusions of the investigative report. What has been seen is insufficient to do so: broken windows indicate a couple of possible shooting positions, but stacks of magazines in a place inconvenient to someone shooting a tripod mounted weapon make no sense. (You'd want them right at hand.) A tripod unused in front of the shooting portal would just be an impediment. Weapons scattered around the room instead of stood back somewhere to cool. Additional weapons not close to the shooting position. All belie a sloppy bit of operational planning, in the midst of an operation in which someone managed to get 27 weapons and considerable amounts of ammo into a hotel room undetected, but shot through the door at a security guard responding to a door ajar alert from another room?
No more mention of Tannerite or Ammonium nitrate in his car, and no mention of quantity of the latter.
Photographs of the crime scene should be in existence. Evidence should have been logged by now: quantities of materials present should be known. These are aspects that, unlike the narrative of eyewitness statements, should not change unless more is discovered--which would make for upward revision.
The absence of large amounts of expended cartridge cases belies thousands of rounds fired from that position.
The six minutes between discovery and shooting at the crowd which keep winking on and off like a bad neon sign.
Claims that he was shooting at the fuel tanks at the airfield (large target, should have been able to get more than a couple of hits, and it sure seems the crowd was the main target) aside from the question of motive for either.
There are some things, like the shooter's motive we may never find out, but usually these can be pieced together through the accounts of those who knew them, the medications they took, autopsy, social media, writings scrawled on the walls of their bedroom, whatever.
And, yes, in the real world, sometimes things just don't make any sense. The person who is impeccable in their personal appearance may live in a pig sty out or Hoarders, or the apparent slob lives in a house out of Architectural Digest--the point being that appearances can be deceiving. Or not.
Certainly fear of lawsuits will be a major driving force in political pressure to absolve the resort of any liability, and that means 'inconvenient' parts of the story might be changed, either in the media, or even by other figures because of the serious pressure by people who have real power, the ones who turned a dusty desert town into Sin City.
