Image 01 Image 03

Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock was a Nowhere Man

Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock was a Nowhere Man

Until he committed mass murder, Paddock’s life left a very small footprint.

Stephen Paddcok fired what are believed to be automatic weapons from a high floor at the Mandalay Bay hotel into a crowd at a country music festival in Las Vegas. At least 59 people were killed, and over 500 wounded.

What is so unusual about the search for information about Paddock is how little there is. Prior to the shooting, his life left a very small footprint.

When these type of events happen, there immediately is an internet hunt for details on a perpetrator’s internet life, and almost always there are immediate indications of ideology and motivation. Not here. There’s almost nothing, only a few photos.

There also usually are manifestos or other documents left behind by the perpetrator indicating motive. So far, nothing.

ISIS has claimed responsibility and that Paddock was a recent convert to Islam, but as of this writing there is no evidence of that. In the past ISIS has released video of one one of their “soldiers” describing what was to happen, but so far nothing.

The usual “what we know about” news articles are almost non-substantive, giving few details that give insight into the act. No criminal record. No run-ins with the police or others. No obvious evidence of financial or other problems. Nothing.

There are claims in social media that he was anti-Trump, and that he was pro-Trump. Be very suspicious of such claims based on sketchy photos of protests. Remember when someone was misidentified after the Boston Marathon bombing.

When interviewed, family and neighbors professed near complete ignorance about Paddock’s life. His brother’s statements, if true, reveal a perpetrator who not only was not suspicious to family and neighbors, but was practically non-existent.

And then there’s the interesting family history of a father who was a wanted bank robber and who lived on the lam after escaping from prison. But if son were to take after father, you would have expected it to show up in his life before this.

Perhaps we’ll learn more in the coming days and weeks. But this is all highly unusual. Paddock appears to be a Nowhere Man:

He’s a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody

Given the resources devoted to figuring out who this Nowhere Man really was, perhaps we’ll find out more. But the fact that it’s proving so difficult tells me something is really odd here, and all may not be as it seems.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Unless he turns out to be some kind of conservative does anyone expect the media or law enforcement to tell us?

    YellowSnake in reply to Anchovy. | October 3, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    YES Do I really need to list the large number of cases where non-conservatives were listed. I guess next you will say they had to because of x,y, or z. But they didn’t list them as leftist when they weren’t caught red-handed. Uh, huh.

    There is one thing we know for sure. He was a gun nut. There was no motive in Sandy Hook. But I guess if you own all these killing machines, a certain number of people are going to get tired of shooting targets and animals and ultimately they are going to decide to live out a fantasy and shoot a bunch of people. No other motive necessary.

    You have a better explanation? If his motive was playing a real, live video game, what are you going to do about it. Nothing

      mailman in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 1:23 pm

      Funny how you fail to name any isn’t it.

      “There is one thing we know for sure. He was a gun nut. There was no motive in Sandy Hook. But I guess if you own all these killing machines, a certain number of people are going to get tired of shooting targets and animals and ultimately they are going to decide to live out a fantasy and shoot a bunch of people. No other motive necessary.”

      This may be the biggest crock of shit you’ve ever spewed here, and that is saying something. Anyone who owns guns is a “gun nut”? Is anyone who owns a bunch of the ultimate killing machines–automobiles–a car nut? Do a certain percentage of them get tired of just driving around and one day run some people over?

        YellowSnake in reply to Obie1. | October 3, 2017 at 1:45 pm

        No, the car nuts, of which I am one, are more likely to kill themselves or someone else in an ‘accident’.

        You have a better explanation for the guy? OK, you don’t like nut. Call him an enthusiast. What was the motive in Sandy Hook?

        You don’t like my explanation? At least it isn’t the kind of twisted scenarios I am reading here. A 2nd gunman? A terrorist whose message is being suppressed? A Spiderman who escaped down the building. Somebody mentioned Occam’s Razor. Well, what is the simplest explanation? He decided to go out playing The Most Dangerous Game.

        I am sorry you don’t like it. Not really.

          How about a suicidal Trump hater who believes guns should be outlawed? Martyr of the first order to the greater good of the people. All people on the left know how to do is force people to do what they think is right and kill them when they don’t do it. This guy fits the profile like the many before him.

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 2:29 pm

          Just a smidgen of proof would be nice. But you just have to prove he was a lefty. Good for you. Maybe he thought he was in a ‘Die Hard’ movie? Ban Hollywood!

          You never bother with proof in any of your troll posts, why should I? I wonder why you are still here. No one even remotely considers anything that you have to say credible. I think your fragile ego would be better served in the echo chambers of the left.

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 3:26 pm

          fragile ego

          Au contraire, I know I am smarter than most of you. I am merely poking with a stick when I read something particularly stupid. If you are ignoring me, you have a strange way of doing it.

          Ahhh the fall back of the fragile ego … I am smarter than you? What makes you think that? Because in your mind you “win” in your every engagement? You are the shooter … he is you. Elitist, arrogant, ignorant. Keep it up buddy and we will be reading about your killing spree in the news.

          “I know I am smarter than most of you”

          LOL, you’re one of the dumbest commie trolls ever.

          You and your heroes killed 100 million + in the last century and now you wish to disarm us so you can continue your killing. Not going to happen here.

        Milhouse in reply to Obie1. | October 4, 2017 at 7:35 am

        Actually yes, I’d say anyone who has more cars than he has any practical use for is a car nut. NTTAWWT.

      When you argue with an idiot, you then have two idiots arguing.

      Today, we have six – including the first idiot.

      InEssence in reply to YellowSnake. | October 4, 2017 at 12:29 am

      The guns he used were illegal. So you’ll have to wait until the next shooting to use that argument.

        Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | October 4, 2017 at 7:39 am

        We don’t know that. So far it’s all speculation.

          InEssence in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2017 at 9:21 am

          The guns were “full auto”, or do you think he was pulling the trigger that fast? Even if he could, a legal rifle rarely fires more than one bullet per second. So yeah, we do know that his guns were illegal, unless you are saying that he was a law enforcement officer.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2017 at 9:53 pm

          In essence, you don’t know much about guns or the law.

    mrGAB444 in reply to Anchovy. | October 6, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    “…mass murder is the objective”

    Is a ‘Tet offensive’ like scenario coming to the USA?

    The Guardian Is Leading the Way In Censoring Sunday’s Tragedy

    Authorities Forced to Admit Multiple Assassins Involved

    The Antifa Inspired Mandalay Massacre Is Just the Beginning

    Hopi prophecy-
    “The day will come when people in high places will be hunted and vice
    versa, the lowly hunters will be hunted. This will get out of control. The
    hunting will gather strength and spread far and wide… “

Follow the money. How did this guy get rich doing nothing?

Real Estate? Transactions are public record.
Gambling? Other than poker, who makes a living gambling?

He may have been confused with a former NASA employee having the same name. Which would mean the guy has possibly never had a job.

    YellowSnake in reply to Petrushka. | October 3, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    So you know nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nada.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Petrushka. | October 3, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Maybe he’s connected to Eric Holder and/or the Clintons…

    Stranger things have happened before……

    snopercod in reply to Petrushka. | October 3, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    Follow the money. How did this guy get rich doing nothing?

    That’s the burning question in my mind. Of course, one could ask the same question about Harry Reid.

      amwick in reply to snopercod. | October 3, 2017 at 5:15 pm

      Why did he send so much money to the Phillipines?

        Geologist in reply to amwick. | October 3, 2017 at 5:51 pm

        If this Marilou Danley is Filipina, as she appears to be, she and Paddock might have been sending money to her family. Many Filipinos are overseas workers who remit money back to family members back home. This is part of the culture.

casualobserver | October 3, 2017 at 11:39 am

Learning much more may hinge on interviews with his girlfriend or partner. It sounds like she is the only one who has been close to him in recent times. (If not in some way a party to this.)

My skepticism about the ISIS claim remains high simply because whenever those claims have been true – which they are more often than not – the documents or voice recordings of the perp’s commitment to ISIS follow very shortly after.

    InEssence in reply to casualobserver. | October 4, 2017 at 12:34 am

    That’s incorrect. All of the attacks that ISIS has claimed have been verified by law enforcement. That is a lot of attacks. ISIS gets the details wrong and they exaggerate, but, so far, they haven’t claim attacks that are not their’s. For example, they didn’t claim the Edmonton attack, even though an ISIS flag was found in the car.

assemblerhead | October 3, 2017 at 11:43 am

Being overly isolated from “everyone” (i.e. no reality checks), can lead to bizarre and extremely warped thinking.
… Dangerous.

Paranoia, undiagnosed & untreated, as well …
… Very Dangerous.

I’m not a mental health expert, but I do wonder.

    YellowSnake in reply to assemblerhead. | October 3, 2017 at 1:16 pm

    Well, if you are right, they were absolutely no impediment to his ownership of extremely lethal weapons. The NRA has a policy of never declaring someone mentally ill until after the guy goes off the deep end. Then, retroactively, we are told he should have gotten help – but not from the ACA.

    Sandy Hook – mentally ill. Las Vegas – mentally ill? Is anything going to change? LOL

      And even with all of the gun laws in the world he could have carried out this attack. Have you forgotten what is happening in Europe. You sicken me. You would have people believe that the government … i.e. YOU could keep people safe if only they thought what you thought go back to the bridge that spawned you fucking scum.

        YellowSnake in reply to Shane. | October 3, 2017 at 2:37 pm

        I didn’t advocate anything. I just pointed out an unworkable excuse used by the NRA. Does “scum” meet the standards of this site? Do I care about your name calling? Guess.

        Shane in reply to Shane. | October 3, 2017 at 3:23 pm

        Clearly polite discourse is lost on you, your posts have made that abundantly clear. That is why you and your ilk are the spiritual brother to the shooter. You are him because force and death are your only solutions. You are in over your head here and you continue to post because just like the NFL players you have to force your rightness on everyone else, and if the doesn’t work then you will do what all others like you do .. you will resort to the thing that you say is the most evil thing in the world .. violence … to get your point across.

      Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 2:00 pm

      “The NRA has a policy of never declaring someone mentally ill…”

      Really? Where do I find that policy?

      What I’ll bet is that the NRA has a policy of never DREAMING of declaring someone mentally ill, since that isn’t their business.

      In other words, no “policy” on the issue whatsoever, except what IS its policy that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. It’s others role to ADJUDICATE any exceptions to that right.

        YellowSnake in reply to Ragspierre. | October 3, 2017 at 2:43 pm

        You are right, Mr. Lawyer. I have read no such policy. I have just noted that whenever an otherwise inexplicable incident of gun violence occurs, the NRA brings up mental health. But come to think of it, they never actually advocate for treatment or screening or education or for associates to do anything. I guess you could call it a cop-out. I will call it a cop-out.

          Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 2:56 pm

          You can call it a tortoise-shell comb. STFW?

          Oddly, I don’t see YOU advocating for any of the things you seem to impose as responsibilities on the NRA. And that would be MUCH more appropriate and useful here, in place of your loopy attacks WRT gun ownership.

          But that’s not your agenda, is it?

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 3:19 pm

          I don’t have an agenda. As a result of a recent incident in my condo, I will probably be buying a shotgun; albeit with non-lethal rounds along with some lethal rounds. I am helping an 85 year old woman to get one, too after a resident used a hammer to try to bash in her door and the Board decided not to seek a Restraining Order.

          I am just amused by the stupidity and rationalization that constantly shows up on this site. I usually do look up things on the net. None of your nit-picking changed the basic things I was pointing out. People here are playing twister to avoid the obvious.

          Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 3:22 pm

          What “nits” did I pick? Seems to me they were all big, hairy monkeys climbing all over your nonsense. #realism is where I live.

          You are fucktardly stupid. I am 100% right on you. You will buy a shotgun but you will get no training nor will you even bother to understand what personal safety steps you could make that would render the shotgun either pointless or inform a better option for self defense. In you dumb fucking mind you will leave the chamber open so that you can rack the slide to “scare” the baddy away. Cause you know in the movies it always works. You are the fucking reason that we have all of these dumb fucking gun laws. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 3:41 pm

          You are entitled to your opinion. I am not sure what a judge or jury would accept, but then we don’t have one.

          All you offer is that the act is inexplicable. That is a rebuttal; not an argument.

          As for the agenda you claim I have, you are simply wrong. In our current political environment I simply don’t believe any of our major problems can be fixed. I just don’t want them intentionally made worse for political gain.

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 3:47 pm

          @Shane You have absolutely no way of knowing any such thing. Perhaps I already received training at summer camp. Possibly one of my best friends is a lifetime member of the NRA.

          It is people like you who reach conclusions with no evidence that are killing this country. You will not make America Great Again with out a giant dose of reality.

          And the fall back argument people like you ALWAYS make … you don’t know anything about me. Welp you have been posting away knowing nothing about any of the people that you denigrate, and then just like all of the crybullies of the left when you get it thrown in your face you whip out “but you don’t know anything about me” faster than Al Sharpton with the race card. I wonder is this part of some sexual fantasy that you have where all of the deplorables call you what you are? I have no idea why you bother to post here, because you will change no ones mind here. Are you so delusional to think that you will change the course of anything?

          healthguyfsu in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 6:12 pm

          the statement of “perhaps you received training at summer camp.” (for a shotgun!) all but indicts your lack of knowledge and/or training.

          Funniest unintentional humor in an otherwise nasty week for bad news

          “Summer camp” shotgun training.

          Damn, you really are dumber than the average dumbass commie.

          Ask your friend in the NRA which end to stick in your mouth.

          CaptTee in reply to YellowSnake. | October 4, 2017 at 2:28 pm

          YellowSnake, will you still be opposed to due process when someone accuses you of a crime you haven’t committed yet?

          CaptTee in reply to YellowSnake. | October 4, 2017 at 2:33 pm

          YellowSnake, be careful when helping a neighbor buy a firearm. You could run afoul of many of the current gun laws. If your elderly neighbor committed a crime long before you were born, and lived an angelic life since, you could go to jail for getting them a firearm.

      Arminius in reply to YellowSnake. | October 4, 2017 at 7:13 am

      That, moron, is because the NRA doesn’t do mental health evaluations. Sane people know this. You are clearly not sane.

      And the NRA has a clear policy position that anyone who is involuntarily committed (the standard set by law as disqualifying someone from gun ownership) should be added to the NICS database just like felons and other disqualified individuals.

      It’s the largely leftist psychiatrists and psychologists who refuse to comply with the law and report such people. And if a mentally individual never seeks help then even the slim hope that they’ll fail the background check disappears.

      This is the category in which you belong, as you hallucinate that it’s the NRA’s job determine who is and who is not mentally ill. So unfortunately you’ll pass the background investigation to buy that shotgun.

      God help your neighbors, and I’m glad I’m not one of them.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | October 4, 2017 at 7:53 am

        The NRA does, however, also have a clear policy position that anyone who has not been involuntarily committed, because there is insufficient evidence that they pose a danger to themselves or others, should not be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms. That is what our yellow friend is complaining about. He wants this civil liberty treated differently from all others, and stripped from people at the slightest hint or accusation of mental instability, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

      Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | October 4, 2017 at 7:46 am

      Um, of course nobody should be declared mentally ill, and stripped of their civil liberties, before they’ve gone off the deep end. How else would you have it? Go back to the days when people could be committed on the say-so of a relative or doctor?! The USSR took political advantage of such a policy, but plenty of people here in the USA took other advantage. There is simply no way to justify it. Unless we can prove someone is dangerous, we have no right to restrict his civil liberties, and if that means he ends up killing a bunch of people that is the price we pay for liberty. Liberty is more important than human life, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth fighting for; or do yo think soldiers’ lives are uniquely cheap?

Automatic weapons are so regulated with a permit north of $5000.
If the authorities don’t know who owned these weapons (I suspect he may have won some of them in a card game), it’s because of lack of trying.

There is also the possibility that they know but it was determined using a database of gun sales that which isn’t supposed to be retained after the FBI gives clearance.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 11:58 am

    Actually the federal permit for having a fully automatic weapon is only about $250 to $500 bucks or having a FFL with the proper permissions. What is really cost prohibitive about them is that most of them cost 10K or better for the weapon itself, not to mention the cost of the ammo to feed it.

      alaskabob in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 3, 2017 at 12:50 pm

      The fee was $200 set in 1934… pricey in those days and intended since they knew they could not ban firearms because of 2A. Also required is a full background check with fingerprints and a letter of good character from local law enforcement. Once you get your license you are required to be available and show your gun or silencer to officials at any time of the day… including middle of the night…period. Since 1986 no one outside local,state, and Fed agencies can acquire newly made full-auto weapons. All pre-86 weapons not already in the system were banned from private ownership. Recently, police departments with Thompsons and such from the good old days auctioned off this for handsome sums. As has been noted … only three murders with these since 1934… and you would not be surprised that one of the hits was by a cop.

        tom swift in reply to alaskabob. | October 3, 2017 at 1:40 pm

        pricey in those days

        $200 was intended to be prohibitive, when a new Thompson cost $175 in Chicago. Last time I ran into one, they were up in the $20,000 range. As long as no new machine guns can be added to BATF’s list, supply is limited. This makes MGs attractive to investors, particularly since one doesn’t need any licensing to own a gun, just to possess it. Keep it in a vault in a bonded warehouse and let somebody else worry about the paperwork.

        BATF’s list has some half-million MGs in the US in non-military and non-police hands. That’s a lot of machine guns not injuring anybody. And of course BATF doesn’t keep tabs on any illegal specimens.

        Valerie in reply to alaskabob. | October 3, 2017 at 6:55 pm

        “Also required is a full background check with fingerprints and a letter of good character from local law enforcement. …”

        Only one? At one time, there was also a requirement for letters of good character from several people willing to say they know the purchaser well.

      pakurilecz in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 3, 2017 at 1:24 pm

      I worked with an individual who has one of the licenses. What few rarely tell you is that the ATF can come and inspect you and your firearms (auto and others) at anytime, and you can’t refuse the inspection. The ATF will find any excuse to revoke your license or to arrest you. This fellow decided to give up all of his firearms that were not full auto

    Andy in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    SOFREP had some good initial analysis on the guns from actual experts ie- guys who have been shot at enough to know what they are being shot at with.

    Their initial take was .223/556 based on sound and probably coiled 100 round refills; with auto, a 30 round mag empties in 3 seconds and they were saying the bursts were 7 seconds. The 100 round coils take a little longer to swap than the mag.

    iconotastic in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    I read somewhere that police found bump stocks/slide stocks in the room. If so that might explain the automatic weapons fire.

    tarheelkate in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    At this point, none of the weapons found in the hotel room has been described as “fully automatic,” so speculation about that type of weapon doesn’t apply to this event.

    snopercod in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    What if the weapon turns out to be a Fast and Furious weapon? LOL!

Then there is the “patsy” model of the events.

What if Stephen Paddock was trying to sell these guns to cover gambling debts. Brought them to the hotel to sell. The buyer turned them on the crowd as ISIS loves. Shot Paddock dead. Escaped.

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    No, no, no. This was a gummint conspiracy. According to commenters and commentators at other web sites only a highly trained and skilled military man could have planned and executed this massacre; and what about the muzzle flashes someone claims to have seen on the 4th floor of the hotel? Paddock is the Lee Harvey Oswald meant to distract our attention from the grassy knoll.

    The less evidence there is of this conspiracy the more successful it is! ( /s off for the gullible)

    YellowSnake in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    Except a security guard was shot through the door by someone. That someone had to escape undetected according to your far-fetched scenario; backed by zero evidence. How did he get away?

      And yet we have no video evidence from the hotel itself. But hey let’s just call someone a liar when there is no evidence at all. Cause gotta troll the troglodytes to prove how large a penis one has.

    Neo in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    I never stated that I had all the answers, but given this guy seems not to be a gunman, by profile, it is necessary to consider the scenarios where he is the unwitting patsy.

    Neo in reply to Neo. | October 3, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Las Vegas madman Stephen Paddock set up a camera inside his hotel room to capture his deadly shooting rampage — and other surveillance in the hallway to alert him as cops closed in on him, according to reports.

    The shooter had at least one lens set up to tape himself as he unleashed hell on thousands of unsuspecting concertgoers several hundred yards below his ritzy casino suite, according to ABC News.

    OK … this would seem to put the ‘patsy’ idea

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 3, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    I guess the down-thumbs are just…

    1. the usual cadre of haters and

    2. people who can’t or won’t read

    Also, contrary to the “nowhere man” meme, Paddock was very much an all-over man.

    He bought weapons legally.

    He flew planes legally.

    He bought and sold real property all over the US (or at least four states).

    He had neighbors who knew him.

    He was a very known quantity in Las Vegas, where he was at least a small “whale”.

    He had owned a business with his brother.

    And, according to accounts, worked as both an accountant and a property manager.

    As to his social media footprint, there are millions of us who don’t use FaceBook, Twitter, or anything like them. That doesn’t make us “dark” in any way.

      This guys lack of social media “footprint” has everyone freaked out, Mr. Rags….

      It’s the fashion right now to broadcast yourself, (your brand) for all to see…makes a persons motivations easier to figure out!

        Ragspierre in reply to tgrondo. | October 3, 2017 at 6:28 pm

        Oh, I DO understand. Some of us are not followers of trends, however. I’ve never trusted social media, and I’m daily proven to have been (in this, at least) wise.

        Ragspierre in reply to tgrondo. | October 3, 2017 at 6:30 pm

        Sorry, I accidentally down-thumbed you!

          That’s OK Mr. Rags….the reply button and the down vote are too close together! (I’ve accidentally down voted, oops!)
          I personally question the need for a down vote button, but that’s just me….

          Also share your distrust of “social media”…I don’t want everyone to know my bizz! (don’t understand the appeal)

      Helen in reply to Ragspierre. | October 3, 2017 at 7:10 pm

      The down votes might just have something to do with using the Washington Post as a reliable source on anything.

        Ragspierre in reply to Helen. | October 3, 2017 at 7:14 pm

        You mean like LI does?

        It that’s the case, they should make that argument.

        Oh, and refute what they can. Seemed a lot of pretty sound reporting to me. And it hangs together well with what we know from various sources.

‘Mr. Nowhere Man’ could have easily obtained any weapons he needed from the American black market, there’s always something floating around the cartel and criminal circles. Weapons are constantly being ripped off from the military and the police, but this yahoo is using a modified ‘trigger bump’ method of rapid fire? Listen to the video.

Why such a small footprint though? Was he a tool of the Deep State? These Casino’s monitor their properties constantly with camera’s – did anyone else enter his room? Who else rented rooms on the adjacent floors, giving them quick ingress/egress? Who was in the casino that day – there are video tapes to review.

    C. Lashown in reply to C. Lashown. | October 3, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    …and furthermore, did he really suicide, or was that just someone taking care of a little housekeeping task? Inquiring minds want to know.

buckeyeminuteman | October 3, 2017 at 12:33 pm

“The line between good and evil runs down the middle of every human heart.” – Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 3, 2017 at 12:47 pm

I wonder why he busted two windows out. He staked out high ground a few hundred yards from his target. From that vantage point and distance, he had a very wide lateral range of motion. He only needed to knock out one window to hit most of the people at the festival. It’s wrong to use reason and logic to explain the actions of a mad man, but Occam’s Razor says the simplest explanation for why two windows were broken out is there were at least two shooters.

    …OR he planned another field of fire. Especially if he thought there might be return fire in his original position.

      Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 6:59 am

      It appears that this guy figured out very well exactly what the police response was going to be and that DID NOT include counterfire from outside the hotel at his firing position. Rifles always shoot high when the rifleman is aiming at a target above or below(elevation/depression angle) their position. The reason for this is that gravity actually has a greater effect on bullet trajectory when shooting horizontally (gravity has a greater effect on bullet velocity than trajectory when shooting at an angle and, obviously, zero effect on velocity when shooting horizontally).

      This shot would have been too far for ordinary policemen. If they had an AR in their patrol vehicles, as many do, it would be at extreme range for their rifle. In order to have a prayer of making that shot they would have to know their exact bullet path at their true ballistic range (TBR). Then they would have had to calculate that range by measuring the line of sight (LOS) range to their target, the elevation angle, then calculate the cosine of the elevation angle, and the range to target would be line of sight distance multiplied the cosine of the elevation angle. All this assumes that the patrol officer knows their bullet path at that range and I’ve never met one that practices at such extreme ranges, has a rangefinder, some means for measuring elevation/depression angles, that it’s a quality device (good scope mounted devices can be had for about $100), they’re good at math, and capable of properly executing such a shot.

      Figure the odds.

      Even for a SWAT team sniper it would be a difficult shot. And while shots in an urban environment are typically much shorter than a military sniper or even a designated marksman would need to be able to take in the field at least the police sniper no doubt would have trained at that range, would know their exact bullet path, would deploy with a range finder and/or a ballistic computer that would measure the LOS range, the elevation angle, do all the necessary calculations and automatically spit out the TBR. Then it’s a simple matter for the guy to adjust the scope so the sniper can shoot directly at the target as if the actual range is the TBR.

      But all that would take too much time and the much simpler and more effective solution would be for the SWAT team to execute a dynamic room entry. Which is exactly what they did. And this perp anticipated exactly that as he had placed at least one security camera outside his door so he would know when the cops had shown up. He discounted the possibility, as would have I, that the LVPD would have randomly sprayed the outside of the hotel with amateur-grade gunfire and endanger the members of the public inside their hotel rooms.

      I don’t place any credence in ISIS’ claim that Paddock was a recent convert to Islam but neither do I dismiss it out of hand. It’s an unlikely possibility and ISIS may very well be making a false claim for propaganda purposes. Because their audience isn’t us but Muslims in the Islamic world. Muslims know their governments routinely lie to them so conspiracy theories abound. When government agencies put out the official party line on some controversial event of national or international interest, the knee-jerk reaction is of most of their populations is that whatever the official explanation happens to be the truth has to be something else. And, most importantly, they simply won’t believe any USG denials because they’ll just assume that the USG is behaving like their governments and is lying and suppressing evidence to hide the fact that ISIS humiliated us by pulling off the largest mass shooting in US history.

      On the other hand I leave it open as a possibility and I most definitely can be persuaded by evidence should any turn up. Everything about this case is just so weird that as far as I’m concerned everything has to remain on the table. And I’m in good company. The UK guardian (not the most reliable of UK papers but then any of the UK papers are more reliable than the US press) quotes Clark County Sheriff Lombardo saying:

      “…The evidence offers an insight into Paddock’s careful planning of the shooting. Lombardo said: ‘I’m pretty sure he evaluated everything that he did in his actions, which is troubling.’

      Paddock’s motive remains unknown. ‘This person may have been radicalised, unbeknownst to us, and we want to identify that source’…”

      I seriously doubt Sheriff Lombardo would publicly state that that Paddock may have been radicalized unless the joint investigation into Paddock had uncovered something that points in that direction.

      And then their are a number of what I will only call for now a number of suspicious coincidences. When I wrote that ISIS might falsely claim this the largest mass shooting in the US as somehow an ISIS operation or at least inspired by ISIS purely for propaganda purposes, they don’t have a track record of doing so. They often exaggerate like hell but I’m not aware of a single incident when one of the claims didn’t have a basis in fact.

      Then there was Paddock’s meticulous and very astute planning. I can’t believe this 64y.o. retired accountant did that all on his own. When we capture ISIS training materials we adapt our procedures to counter their plans and methods. But at the same time groups such as ISIS (and AQ) study us and adapt to our countermeasures.

      Another suspicious coincidence for now at least is that in May ISIS called for a “lone wolf” (these “lone wolves” are never alone but travel in packs) attack on the Vegas strip.

      There was a coordinated response to this threat. The LVPD increased their presence on the strip while the hotels increased security inside, but they focused almost exclusively on the casinos. Paddock didn’t attempt to shoot up the casino. Again, there’s that meticulous and astute planning. Like Sheriff Lombardo I find it troubling.

      Another suspicious coincidence is Paddock’s choice of targets. This is something a lot of people either haven’t picked up on or are getting entirely wrong because they’ve been brainwashed to believe that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. There have been several incidents of “refugees” in Europe attempting to get inside music festivals and failing to get past security so they detonated themselves outside and did very little damage. Which is why the Manchester bomber in the UK was so successful. He didn’t try to breach the security perimeter but simply waited just outside for the attendees to leave after the Arriana Grande concert ended, then blew himself up along with much of the crowd in the lobby (as I said, they study us and adapt to counter our security methods).

      There’s a reason Islamic terrorists target concerts and music festivals. Because according to the Islamic traditions, the ahadith, Muhammad banned music as immoral. He made a couple of concessions; women could use tamborines but only to celebrate weddings. This is why Islamic songs aren’t instrumental but consist only of chanting. Since Muslims are supposed to avoid killing other Muslims they attack concerts and music festivals because there will be no Muslims there but just the filthy kuffar engaged in their decadent and immoral vices. But, but you say there were British Muslims of Pakistani descent at the Arriana Grande concert and there may have been some at the Vegas festival as well. Not according to fundamentalist Muslims. Any nominal Muslim enjoying these vile Western sins while ignoring the clear rulings of the prophet of Islam is by definition an apostate, a heretic, and is no longer within the fold of Islam.

      And then Paddock clearly planned months in advance so he could get a room overlooking this music festival. Is this proof that he converted to Islam and was a “soldier” of ISIS? No, of course not. But that is why Muslim terrorists choose these events for their attacks, which isn’t the same as saying Paddock was a Muslim terrorist. It could be just a coincidence that he chose exactly the sort of crowd that ISIS tells wanna-be terrorists to attack because of the type of event they’re attending. I find that curious but he may very well had his own unrelated reasons which we may find out if the police ever discover and make public his true motivations (which will then lead to the obvious question, how come they keep saying “we may never know” when trying to figure out the motive of Muslims who commit terrorist attacks while shouting Allahu Akbar after leaving facebook manifestos about swearing allegience to ISIS or calling 911 and going on for half an hour about how they are killing in the cause of Allah when federal and local LEOs can figure out “nowhere man’s” motive).

      Then there’s that $100k transfer to the Philippines. Everybody seems to assume that was sort of a “life insurance” payout for his live in girlfriend but I’m not so sure. Did she actually intend to retire there? And it’s going to be interesting if the details of his will ever become public as she may well be in it. Or he might have already made her rich as I’m sure given how detailed he planned his crime he had to know the victims and their families would have a prior claim to any of his millions he planned to leave anybody.

      I also find it curious he had cameras inside the room so he could record or perhaps livestream his mass murder/suicide. Who was he doing that for? Not for himself as he didn’t plan to live to see it and certainly not for family and friends who now revile him. Again it reminds me of how ISIS records and posts video of their murders, but I think that’s enough curious coincidences for now. I just find it odd that a retired accountant who is the unlikeliest of mass murderers or a convert to Islam and a “soldier” of ISIS could have planned his crime in such meticulous and accurate detail all by his lonesome.

        Ragspierre in reply to Arminius. | October 4, 2017 at 8:18 am

        “Rifles always shoot high when the rifleman is aiming at a target above or below(elevation/depression angle) their position.”

        Wrong. Go out and see for yourself. If shooting down, you aim lower. If shooting up, aim higher. Gravity is the difference in both instances.

        I like the ventilation theory best for the second broken window.

        Regular ol’ country boys were effective in suppressing the Texas Univ. killer, and they were shooting up at a pretty high angle. So, just maybe you’re wrong about all that crap you wrote, too.

          Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 9:58 am

          I’m not wrong and I don’t need to “go outside and see for myself” because I’ve actually already done it. True, on game and not as a police or military sniper. But I’ve done it many times.

          Rifles shoot high whether aiming at a target above or below your position. Maybe if one of those “ordinary country boys” knew that they would have killed Whitman instead of just forcing him to keep his head down while he continued to fire.

          But then Texas is pretty flat so they wouldn’t know. Shooting at steep angles is common when you hunt alpine terrain and the hill country ain’t alpine terrain. But I grew up hunting in the Sierras and I’ve hunted mountain game from New Zealand to Alaska to Namibia since then so I know better. Certainly I know enough to know that what you imagine about aiming higher when the target is at a higher elevation is an old wives tale. It’s true, gravity is what makes the difference. And gravity is a very consistent force. It always affects objects the same way; pulling objects down toward the earth. And gravity has more of an effect on the trajectory of a bullet fired horizontally than at any other angle. Common sense should tell you that even if you’ve never taken high shool-level science ocurses. If you were to be able to get directly above or below an animal then the bullet would have zero curved trajectory. Since gravity always and only works one way, down, the only effect gravity has on the bullet is velocity.

          As the angle to the target moves from the vertical to the horizontal then the effect of gravity on trajectory gradually increases until you cross the horizontal where gravity has the greatest effect on the bullets trajectory and hence the greatest effect on bullet drop. Then less and less until you reach the vertical in the opposite direction. Where once again you have zero curved trajectory. It doesn’t matter if you start shooting straight up or straight down and end up shooting at the opposite vertical direction. The rifle fires higher regardless of whether or not you’re shooting up or down. Because people sight in their rifles at the horizontal. If you were to fire at a target 200 yards directly above or below you your are going to miss if you attempt to compensate for your rifle’s bullet drop you experience at the target range you will miss wildly high. In fact, if you aim dead-on you will miss high regardless of whether you’re shooting straight up or straight down because to hit the bull at the range you have to compensate for the curved trajectory, and now you have zero curved trajectory.

          Whether you are shooting up or down, it doesn’t matter. I know I’m being repetitive butthere’s a lot of bad shooting advice out there and much of it comes from people who apparently don’t know how gravity works so I’m going to pound this point home. At anything less than a gentle elevation or depression angle within the point blank range (PBR) for your rifle (and no, PBR doesn’t mean what non-hunters think it means; it means the maximum range at which you don’t need to worry about the rise or fall of the bullet i.e. shooting at a four inch target you can aim directly at the target and whether or not your bullet rises above your LOS by two inches or drops two inches below LOS you will hit the target) you have to remember you are working toward the vertical where you have zero bullet drop. As the angle increases you have less and less bullet drop, and the higher the bullet will strike.

          No doubt those flatlanders had heard the same thing you had heard about shooting at an elevated target. Which is why several police officers and one civilian volunteer had to go up to the observation deck and kill Whitman. Because taking your advice they never were going to hit a damn thing. It’s basic physics. You’re welcome for the free lesson.

          Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 10:09 am

          “…At anything less than a gentle elevation or depression angle within the point blank range (PBR) for your rifle…”

          That should have been, “At anything MORE than a gentle elevation or depression angel within the point blank range (PBR) for your rifle…”

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 10:11 am

          Dude, you ARE wrong, and it’s just a matter of simple physics.

          Drop a rock held in front of your face. Which way does it accelerate?

          Toward (roughly) the center of the earth. Every. Time.

          So, a rifle bullet fired down will be acted on the same way (gravity accelerating it), while a rifle bullet fired up will be acted on by gravity STILL accelerating it, but toward the earth, or apparently slowing it down.

          Get another rock and throw it straight up over your head. You’ll see the demonstration of what I’m RIGHT about.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 11:07 am

          Another reason you’re wrong (and obdurate in your error) comes from simple geometry.

          A shooter firing at any angle we are discussing is shooting at a target FURTHER away than if he were shooting at a horizontal target. Anyone who can draw a right triangle can immediately see this, where the building is the vertical leg and the ground is the horizontal leg.

          The trajectory of any projectile is a function of time of flight, and the vectors of acceleration acting on it (disregarding stuff like the rotation of the earth, which makes no difference here, and drag). And, again, those vectors work to slow a bullet fired up (not vertically, but at an angle) and they work to speed up a bullet fired at a downward angle. Again, time of flight being the thing most changed, both by the added distance over a horizontal shot, and the effects of gravity.

          Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 11:44 am

          I’m sorry, Rags. I accused you of not taking high school-level science. Clearly it was grammar school-level science that you didn’t take as you’re making my points without realizing it.

          1. If you fire a rifle straight down you will hit the earth.

          2. If you fire a rifle straight up it will rise until it runs out of momentum, then fall back to earth and unless the wind is blowing will hit you on the head. That is because when shooting straight up or straight up or down the only effect gravity has on the bullet is velocity. If you shoot straight down the bullet won’t lose velocity as it normally would. If you shoot straight up it will lose velocity more rapidly. I see I need to explain everything slowly using the shortest words I can, so at this point I need to tell you that is why it’s a bad idea to shoot straight up into the air.

          3. It doesn’t matter if you shoot straight up or straight down because gravity only works in one direction; down. So if you shoot straight up or down the bullet will not travel in a curve as it does when you fire level with the ground. because then gravity pulls the bullet down toward the earth. When shooting horizontally that is when the curve of arch of the bullet’s path is the greatest.

          4. The more the angle to the target varies from the horizontal in either direction the less effect gravity has on the arch of the bullet’s path. The steeper the angle to the target either higher or lower the less effect gravity has on the arch of the bullet’s path until you are shooting vertically in either direction and then there will be no arch to the bullet’s path.

          5. This is why rifles will shoot higher than they will at the target range as the angle to the target increases in both the up and down directions. The steeper the angle to the target in either direction the less curved the arch of the bullet’s path until you reach a point where there the bullet’s path has no arch.

          6. The worst shooting advice comes from people who don’t know how gravity works. You clearly think that the higher the target is above your position then gravity starts to work sideways. And you have to aim higher to make up for the for the more steeply curved bullet path caused by the sideways pull of this sideways gravity. Gravity does not work that way.

          7. Why are you a science denier, Rags?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 12:10 pm

          I’ve had…and aced…college physics.

          You’re WRONG, and an obdurate moron.

          You should ask someone who understands physics why you’re WRONG.

          Maybe someone can draw you pictures. Or make you go out to shoot.

          Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 12:27 pm

          “A shooter firing at any angle we are discussing is shooting at a target FURTHER away than if he were shooting at a horizontal target. Anyone who can draw a right triangle can immediately see this, where the building is the vertical leg and the ground is the horizontal leg.”

          Your last comment made me laugh out loud.

          Do everyone a favor including the animals and if you ever take up hunting hunting and find yourself in the mountains never EVER take a shot without a good laser rangefinder that will automatically calculate your true ballistic range to the target. That is the range to target you have to worry about. Not the actual LOS distance to the target.

          Your TBR is going to be much shorter than the actual LOS distance to the target depending on how greatly the angle to the target varies from the horizontal. In either direction. It doesn’t matter if you are aiming at a target above or below you. If you are shooting at a target 400 yards distant at a 40dg angle either above or below you then you do not use the same hold-over that you would if he target were 400 yards as the crow flies. You will miss wildly as your bullet flies well high of the target. Since your rifle will shoot high whether your target is uphill or downhill of you have to aim as if the target was only 335 yards away.

          Here’s a recommendation.

          “Leupold’s RX series laser rangefinders are top performers. Some of the latest technology introduced in RX series models include 13 selectable reticles, thermometer, inclinometer fold-down rubber eyecups, and accuracy within ±1 yard. The RX-III has True Ballistic Range™(TBR™). This provides a firearm or bow shooter with the correct range when shooting up or down hills. A sophisticated ballistics algorithm is applied to give the corrected, accurate value. This makes uphill and downhill shot placement much more precise. Advanced software, linked to ballistic groupings within the system, allows shooters to utilize TBR in conjunction with their reticle to more precisely determine point of aim when shooting up or down hill. Digital Instrument Panel™ processes signal information digitally in an easy-to-read format…”

          Your silly attempt to explain geometry simply serves to emphasize the basic math and physics of what we are talking about. A more observant person might get the impression that in my earlier comment when I discussed the elements that would have to be measured or calculated to determine your TBR to the target; measured LOS distance to target, measured supression/elevation angle to target, calculated trigonometric cosine of the angle to the target, etc., that I understood the basic geometry. You are not such a person.

          So it’s OK that all this is over your head and you’re incapable of understanding it. Because it won’t be over your rangefinder’s head and it will be able to understand exactly what I’ve been saying.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 12:35 pm

          You’re confused, poor thing.

          I understand. You just don’t get basic concepts, preferring jargon. I do think it’s funny to picture you slavering over a keyboard to try to insult me, when I’m talking science and you’re talking what you think.

          Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 12:42 pm

          You would think that someone who claims to have aced college physics wouldn’t be such a bonehead.

          On second thought take up alpine hunting and don’t use a rangefinder. Follow your unscientific theory and wonder why you keep missing. More game left for more experienced hunters who actually understand the science of killing a game animal whether it’s high on the slope above us or down in the ravine below us. And have the practical experience to execute the shot.

          Something you clearly do not have because if you had any practical experience you wouldn’t remain so solidly married to your imbecilic nonsense.

          And I’m done. Trying to get you to face facts is like trying to explain colors to someone who was born blind.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 12:50 pm

          You’re still wrong. Stupidly, arrogantly, and obdurately wrong.

          I knew what I’m telling you is correct when I was a kid, hunting rabbits in Kulhifornia. I understood WHY it correct when I studied the physics of projectiles, and their trajectory.

          I’ve provide you a clear demonstration, using the most practical terms and concepts (rock solid….HEH!) I could.

          And you STILL are clinging to your really stupid claims.

          I can’t fix stupid.

          Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | October 5, 2017 at 8:41 am

          Yeah, I’m the moron and idiot. Me and the US Army marksmanship trainers who authored Field Manual 23-10, “Sniper Training”, Chapter 3, “Marksmanship.”

          “3-11. ANGLE FIRING

          Most practice firing conducted by the sniper team involves the use of military range facilities, which are relatively flat. However, as a sniper being deployed to other regions of the world, the chance exists for operating in a mountainous or urban environment. This requires target engagements at HIGHER and LOWER elevations. Unless the sniper takes corrective action, BULLET IMPACT WILL BE ABOVE THE POINT OF AIM. HOW HIGH the bullet hits is determined by the range and angle to the target (Table 3-3). The amount of elevation change applied to the telescope of the rifle for angle firing is known as slope dope. ”

          And producers of ballistics software, whose livelihoods depend on producing a product that tells shooters where their point of aim must be AND produce hits or they’re out of business, they’re so stupid and idiotic they actually produce software that tells the user to shoot lower regardless of whether the user is shooting up or downhill.

          “3.3 Effects of Shooting Uphill or Downhill

          When a gun is sighted in on a level or nearly level range and then is fired EITHER uphill or downhill, THE GUN WILL ALWAYS SHOOT HIGH. This effect is well known among shooters, particularly hunters [Note: which you clearly are not, Rags], but how high the gun will shoot is a subject of considerable controversy in the shooting literature. In fact, at the present time some literature has information that is simply erroneous. In this subsection, we will try to explain the physical situation carefully so that it can be understood clearly, and then provide some examples using Infinity to perform precise calculations… ”

          No, on second thought you have it exactly backward. You’re the idiot and moron. Where did you “ace” college physics, you pompous, arrogant ignorant no-nothing dolt? Wally “Buck” Cooter’s College of Tire Retreading, Pro Bowling Tour Prep, Advanced Physics, and Hair Weaving?

          But you keep telling yourself how right you always are, wanker. Wally “Buck” Cooter wouldn’t have it any other way. He was so proud when he presented you with your certificate in physics and your custom bowling shirt, I’m sure.

      Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | October 4, 2017 at 7:38 am

      I should have spelled out why I find the money transfer to the Philippines so suspicious. It could have been for his girlfriend but she doesn’t live there. She lives in the US and is reportedly an Australian citizen. It could have been for her family. On the other hand it could have been for for someone else entirely, such as an intermediary for one of the many Muslim terrorist groups such as Abbu Sayyaf or the Moro National Liberation Front and the many splinter groups. Some of which have declared loyalty to ISIS.

      Recall just this past June the Armed Forces of the Philippines had to liberate the city of Marawi on the southern island of Mindanao after it had been seized by elements of two such terrorist groups, Abu Sayyaf and Maute, who hoisted the black flag of ISIS and began taking Christians as hostages and even executing many Christians en masse in good, pious Islamic style.

      I’m not jumping to any conclusions. I don’t know if the money was going to be used to fund any of the many ISIS-affiliated Muslim terrorist groups. But then, neither do I know if the money was for his girlfriend or her family. Anybody who simply assumes that was is jumping to a conclusion, not me.

    A possibility. It6 is also possible that the gunshot wound, that he suffered, was not self inflicted. The scenarios are nearly endless.

    Again, as the investigation progresses, we will have a better idea of what actually transpired in the Mandalay Bay Hotel. What is really interesting about this, is that Paddock made no attempt to escape. None. It took 72 minutes for LEOs to arrive at his room. He was reportedly found dead. Yet, he made no attempt to flee nor did he wait and engaged responding officers.

    More and more questions. And still very few answers.

      snopercod in reply to Mac45. | October 3, 2017 at 3:47 pm

      It took 72 minutes for LEOs to arrive at his room.

      When seconds count, the police are only 72 minutes away. Sheesh. Reminds me of Columbine…

        I guess the concert-goers should be happy they stopped Paddock at all.

        See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales

        Mac45 in reply to snopercod. | October 3, 2017 at 10:09 pm

        Not necessarily a long response given the circumstances. The man was firing from a location ~500 yards away, from a building having multiple floors with multiple rooms on each floor. Also, the number and exact location of the gunmen were unknown.

        First, it had to be determined that the shots were coming from that particular building. Then resources have to be diverted to the building to secure it, during a massive civilian evacuation situation. Then manpower has to be brought ni to sweep the hotel and locate the shooter. Then the shooter has to be engaged.

        Depending upon the information received and the accuracy of that information and the available manpower, this might have been accomplished faster. But, one hour after the shooter finished firing is not out of line.

        Columbine was an entirely different situation. Back then SOP, in active shooter situations was to contain the shooter, develop intelligence, negotiate a surrender and use dynamic entry as a last resort. That protocol has been changed, as the nature of hostage situations has changed.

        Actually, the police did NOT stop Paddock. He stopped for an, as yet, unknown reason. There was no way for the concert goers to protect themselves. They were at an open air event, with little cover or concealment and taking fire from a position above them. It will be very interesting to see what Paddock’s exact actions were and what tactics he chose to pursue.

        Now, think for just a moment, what the results of Paddock driving a large truck through the fence and into and through the crowd would have been. As the fleeing concert goers were able to knock down fences to escape, a large vehicle would probably have been able to enter the same way. And, it would probably have resulted in the same amount of casualties.

    The room had to be filling up with smoke. He likely was creating a cross draft. I heard somewhere that the first alert at the casino was the fire alarms.

smalltownoklahoman | October 3, 2017 at 12:51 pm

“When these type of events happen, there immediately is an internet hunt for details on a perpetrator’s internet life, and almost always there are immediate indications of ideology and motivation. Not here. There’s almost nothing, only a few photos.

There also usually are manifestos or other documents left behind by the perpetrator indicating motive. So far, nothing.”

My first thought after reading that: “Dammit, one of these psychos finally got smart about that!” It is very worrisome that so far there seems to be very few clues as to why he committed such a horrible deed. I hope that authorities can turn up something as they continue to dig into his past.

Humphrey's Executor | October 3, 2017 at 12:53 pm

Don’t tell me let me guess: “He was a quiet guy. Never bothered anyone. Pretty much kept to himself. Kind of a loner”

He was a good boy, a very good boy.

Paddock is a Rorschach test for everyone at this time, imho.

But the fact that it’s proving so difficult tells me something is really odd here, and all may not be as it seems.

Yes indeed, quite a few things about this whole story just don’t “hang” right.

    YellowSnake in reply to tom swift. | October 3, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    How can such a horrific event ever ‘hang’ right? If all the pieces fit together, you would still not be happy. It would all be to ‘neat’. You need this to be inexplicable.

    It is becoming obvious. He shot targets. He shot animals. Then he shot humans.

      Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 1:37 pm

      Where do you get that he was a hunter?

      Millions of Americans, and lots of people around the world, shoot targets and animals, and never dream of shooting another human being, much less a mass of people.

      How is your loopy conclusion “obvious”?

        YellowSnake in reply to Ragspierre. | October 3, 2017 at 2:19 pm

        Where do you get that he was a hunter?

        That he had a license to hunt in Alaska?

        Millions of Americans, and lots of people around the world, shoot targets and animals, and never dream of shooting another human being, much less a mass of people.

        Yep millions shoot targets. Maybe a few thousand have fantasies – Maybe a couple will carry out their fantasy.

        How is your loopy conclusion “obvious”?

        Retract “obvious”. Substitute ‘likely’. I guess you will need to settle for some conspiracy or some convoluted, unproveable, copout that lets you sleep better.

        I didn’t come up with my scenario until after I read the complete drivel written here. As I read the ridiculous speculation that included everything but an invisible man, it started to dawn on me what was most likely. Why not? Couldn’t a guy, bored with his life, decide to literally go out with a bang? What was the motive of the granddaddy of them all – the Texas Tower shooter?

          Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 2:31 pm

          I believe you’ll find he had a FISHING license in Alaska.

          I’ll never lose any sleep over this. People go crazy, and they do frightful things in that state. This is only “unique” in its scale. Stabbing all your family members to death is no more “explicable”. I don’t need…or even look for…explanations for all human conduct. Some of it is beyond explanation.

          YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 3:05 pm

          Other sites report he had a hunting license. The majority now report it was a fishing license. That isn’t the main point.

          OK, it is inexplicable. Tell that to your fellow travelers. They believe it is explainable and that he had to be a lefty or an islamic terrorist – maybe both.

          I didn’t mean that you would literally lose sleep. I won’t and I am regularly in NYC. I laugh when one of the Yahoos tries to prove that you and I are one in the same. I am just having fun with a bunch of fewls who don’t understand that Trump is a grifter.

          I don’t think there is a ‘solution’ to the gun issue. Didn’t Whitman use a bolt action rifle?

          Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 3:06 pm

          ***Retract “obvious”. Substitute ‘likely’.***

          But, according to your own comment, it is vanishingly UNLIKELY.

          And, again, what makes all this the stuff of so much notoriety is NOT the act of a crazy guy killing someone, but the scale involved. That’s kind of nuts, all by itself. A crazy person burns up their family in their sleep, and that’s local tragedy for a few days. No political leverage to ban fire. That would be crazy-talk…

          So what about all of the people that butcher the yummy meat that you eat everyday? They just go crazy one day and start butchering humans instead of pigs or cows. You present these stupid fucking ideas because you have the maturity of a 10 year old. Adults, which you are not, will look at all of the evidence available to them and draw conclusions based on said evidence. Maybe they are right maybe they are not, and as an adult we understand that many times we are not right.

      alaskabob in reply to YellowSnake. | October 3, 2017 at 1:40 pm

      “…he shot himself.” Unfortunately he did that last. You must be cringing in abject fear for the thousands upon thousands of military trained people out there that have shot targets and shot humans… frankly… I am more concerned about you….

It does seem very odd that no motivation, as twisted as it must have been, has yet emerged. When a man in Chapel Hill shot three college students over a parking spot a couple of years ago, which is a “crazy” act, soon after the event many neighbors testified that he had a volatile temper and they were all afraid of him. A former relative of mine who was a sociopath exhibited manipulative and deceptive behavior apparently most of her life. These people usually leave a track record before their behavior spins entirely out of control.

Playing video poker for high stakes isn’t “normal” for most people, but also isn’t the kind of behavior which routinely leads to carefully-planned mass murder.

    InEssence in reply to tarheelkate. | October 4, 2017 at 12:51 am

    Recent converts to Islam often go on a jihad. He was probably scoping things out for a few months and making his plans.

      Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | October 4, 2017 at 8:08 am

      But what makes you suppose he converted, other than IS’s word?

        InEssence in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2017 at 9:26 am

        I’m saying that it is a plausible motive. There is only scant evidence that he converted, but ISIS has not lied about those things in the past. By now, the investigators will know whether he converted, and one of them said they were looking into whether he was “radicalized”.

        randian in reply to Milhouse. | October 4, 2017 at 3:13 pm

        As you say we don’t know for sure he converted, and our progressive, pro-Islam government has ample motive to lie to us in order to maintain the “religion of peace” meme. On the other hand, would devout Muslims claim a vile kuffar as an Islamic hero? I don’t see it, even as propaganda.

“…fired what are believed to be automatic weapons…”

Were they or were they not automatic? Why do we not know this yet? What caliber was used? At least one of the injured should have a bullet that was removed and be identifiable.

Or would the answers tell more than the FBI wishes?

I don’t much care for Pamela Gellers website, but…

Still a lot of speculation. And not much substance.

What we have found out today is that the rifles were probably not fully automatic weapons, either converted or manufactured that way. It appears that they were equipped with a legal accessory called a “bump-stock”, which allows continuous fire as long as the trigger is depressed and the stock is welded to the shoulder or other semi-solid point.

We still have no “reason” for the shooting. In the case of a number of “insane” killers, we can make a good guess as to what reasons they had to commit the act by looking at their past behavior and life. Some actually leave manifestos to explain why they committed the act. In the case of the San Bernardino shooters, it was most likely a combination of radicalization and a grudge against co-workers. At Sandy Hook, it was most likely a rebellion against authority [mother and former school] as well as frustration and anger and deteriorating mental state. Cho, at VT, was obviously delusional. The tragedy there was that no one did anything about his deteriorating condition until it was too late. There is always a reason, or cluster of reasons why people do what they do. It only has to be found or determined. In the case of Stephen Paddock, we do not have enough information to make a logical determination of what his reasons were, for the shooting.

So, the best bet is to sit back. Wait to see what information surfaces. And, then make a reasoned, logical decision of what course of action should be followed.

    tom swift in reply to Mac45. | October 3, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    Cho, at VT, was obviously delusional. The tragedy there was that no one did anything about his deteriorating condition

    And he sailed through the NICS. Even when we have severely restrictive (and expensive) laws and regulations, it’s difficult to show that any of them enhance public safety.

    But the best part of the VT atrocity is that officialdom’s universal response to such crises—”lockdown” (a nice dynamic-sounding word masking general inaction)—made it impossible for his victims to escape.

      Mac45 in reply to tom swift. | October 3, 2017 at 10:15 pm

      Cho had a lot of mental issues. But, until the actual shooting he never exhibited any behavior which rose to the level of his being committed as a danger to himself or others. His condition was not well monitored and his deterioration was not noticed.

      I have dealt with a significant number of mentally disturbed people. Some are relatively easy to label dangerous. Others, not so much, until they actually do something dangerous. I have also dealt with a number of psychiatrists and psychologists. It is scary what diagnoses they make and what they base them on.

“There are claims in social media that he was anti-Trump, and that he was pro-Trump. Be very suspicious of such claims based on sketchy photos of protests. Remember when someone was misidentified after the Boston Marathon bombing.”
Hey L.I. why don’t you do a little investigating of the guy in this anti-Trump protest wearing a pink NASA shirt (he was Lockheed Martin) instead of just telling us it isn’t like you know that for sure. There is also a little clip where it is claimed someone calls him Steve which I don’t have here.
I would give you the link to the video but it has been removed. Imagine that.

    Petrushka in reply to Conan. | October 3, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Mr. Pink is an enigma. I can’t imagine why someone who knows him hasn’t come forward to say that he’s alive and he isn’t the shooter. They could go directly to the police to avoid being publicly identified.

      Ragspierre in reply to Petrushka. | October 3, 2017 at 3:27 pm

      Oddly, there are great swaths of America that never see a fringe website. This will seem incomprehensible to you.

Very interesting that he’s such a conspicuously blank slate. It seems that most recent mass shooters are committing a very public suicide, none expect to survive the event, as if they’re “sending a message.” But what’s the message? And what are the odds that the girlfriend doesn’t return to the US?

David Breznick | October 3, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Please don’t insult Jeremy Hillary Boob, aka Nowhere Man.

As far as no social presence, I read early on he had both a Twitter and Facebook account. And they were both gone within minutes of the start of the shooting. Before anyone should have known who he was. He was a property manager and reportedly real estate investor. And not just a pilot, but aircraft owner. Two.

That information doesn’t jibe will no social media presence.

Actually it is now being reported that “suspicious activity” on his bank accounts was reported at least 200 times… and no one did anything

    gmac124 in reply to Mercyneal. | October 4, 2017 at 11:14 am

    “Suspicious activity” doesn’t necessarily rise to needing to be reported. I am called by my bank several times a year to verify that I made purchases. I am glad they do but by no means are they something that should be reported to law enforcement. One example that will trigger my bank is a charge in a far away town and one in my home town on the same day. Using your debit card over the internet or calling in an order with a vendor far away can easily trigger a call. So being a retired person with some means I am not surprised at all.

Some random musings:

It’s been reported that he was a loner with a long term girlfriend. This makes no sense.

He was a guy with a lot of time on his hands. It sounds from neighbors that he was always gone for long periods of time.

The planning for this had to be over years. Could somebody with this much forethought really have a death wish? I think the smoke detectors were the critical mistake. The room would have filled with smoke with the first clip. I think he had an exit plan.

It sounds like he was squeaky clean and could have easily gotten a license to own a fully automatic weapon. Sticking point is finding one for sale which would be the case, legal or not. Also, the expense could be as high as $50,000 from what I’ve heard.

No matter how cleaver he was, he had to have gotten help. Gun shops would have been of limited help since they are quick to report suspicious behavior. That leaves the internet. He had to have been online. You don’t just ask anybody next door how to modify a semi into an automatic.

He had to have had hobbies other than gambling. Did they include working with tools. If not, he had to have had help modifying the guns.

It’s been mentioned that there was bomb making materials in his car. That could have been plan B. I’m sure he wasn’t fertilizing his cactuses.

I’m confused by the number of guns in the room and the 10 suitcases. Every time you bring in another gun you risk being caught. With all the planning involved, why would you take that kind of risk. Four guns is as good as 10 or 20 for what he had planned.

He must have spent a lot of time mastering the guns. You can only do so much at a range before becoming suspicious. He had to have some desert property. This guy had no military training and his family which he was not estranged from had no idea that he owned any guns. Could he have been self taught?

Even if he has no obvious online footprint, his car can be traced and so can his phone and financial transactions. They should be able to reconstruct his movements. The forensics will be absolutely fascinating.

For some reason i keep thinking about the Bruce Willis character in RED or the guy in Taken with special skills.

    alaskabob in reply to DanJ1. | October 3, 2017 at 11:32 pm

    The reply is right by down thumb…sorry. OR… He is over the top to promote gun control. Think a personal version of Fast and Furious…murdering and sacrificing himself for THE CAUSE.

My understanding from is he was registered as a Democrat in Florida

So he put a gun in his mouth, pulled the trigger and hit the carpet. Do not look at this unless you want to see the way that this coward ended. Be prepared, it is not pretty.

    amwick in reply to amwick. | October 3, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    I am actually glad now that images do not display, you can choose to look or not.

    DanJ1 in reply to amwick. | October 3, 2017 at 5:47 pm

    Assuming that the pic is really the shooter (I’d be surprised if it is real), somebody here should be able to identify the shell casings and give an idea of the weapon(s) used. I’ve never stayed in the Mandalay Bay rooms so I don’t know if the carpet is similar to what you would find in a corner room like his.

The shooter had at least one lens set up to tape himself as he unleashed hell on thousands of unsuspecting concertgoers several hundred yards below his ritzy casino suite, according to ABC News.

The ABC story says nothing about a camera.

nordic_prince | October 3, 2017 at 5:22 pm

But the fact that it’s proving so difficult tells me something is really odd here, and all may not be as it seems.

Indeed. Something is fishy about this entire incident. It would be nice if we could trust the MSM to give us accurate, unbiased, complete reporting, but that’s ascribing too much competence to them. If you don’t want “nutters” and “conspiracy theorists” to have a field day, you could take pains to report things honestly. But I suppose that’s above the MSM’s pay grade.

    billdyszel in reply to nordic_prince. | October 3, 2017 at 5:34 pm

    Investigators might also be keeping details quiet if they have indications that anyone else is involved. Avoid tipping off other suspects, if there are any.

      C. Lashown in reply to billdyszel. | October 3, 2017 at 9:20 pm

      …and what if the ‘other suspects’ are an employee of some rogue government agency? For several years now it has appeared that America is being pushed or guided down some weird pathway.

My best guess, based on my vast(lack of) training in psychology, but years of experience watching people, is that he was a nobody who wanted to be famous; a victim of our Kardashian fame obsessed society and the media circus that surrounds notoriety.

He apparently videoed the whole thing for posterity and had far more guns in the room with him than he could possibly use.

The media has been splashing his name and photo everywhere every two minutes, he will be the subject of endless psychology papers and lectures and his name and photo will come up for decades every time some other loser scumbag does something similar.

The media, meanwhile will squeeze it for every dollar they can.

The Las Vegas gunman who killed nearly 60 people at a country music festival worked as a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, an IRS agent and in an auditing department over a 10-year period.

A spokeswoman for the Office of Personnel Management told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Stephen Paddock’s employment included about two years as a mail carrier from 1976 to 1978.

After that, he worked as an agent for the Internal Revenue Service for six years until 1984. And then he worked a defense auditing job for about 18 months.

The information helped complete the timeline surrounding the 64-year-old Paddock’s life. He graduated from college in 1977 from Cal State Northridge and also worked for a defense contractor in the late 1980s.
—The AP

Check it. Refute it with data, not opinions.

IF he did what everyone thinks he did (and he was not a fall-guy, or set up like Lee Oswald): the monstrosity of his act aside, he really is an a-hole.

But something is not right here. Either this was the act of an angry guy bent on suicide who didn’t want to go out without hurting the crowd who rejected him, or he was set up.

Lyndon Johnson is not president: Donald Trump is. He’ll get to the bottom of this.

But don’t count on AG Sessions – he’s probably recuse himself, and instead do whatever he does to pass the time away. (We know it isn’t making America a one-tier justice system.)What an amazing disappointment Sessions turned out to be.

I’m starting to think that the authorities DO know something about the shooter’s motives and are just holding it back for as long as they can to let emotions cool. This might be the case whether the guy was a left OR right wing crackpot, or an overnight jihadi.