It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why has No One noticed the Las Vegas shooter's broken leg?

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh duh. Brainfart. You're right. LOL. I forgot about the broken windows.
Anyway those curtains are pretty heavy and hard.




posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
The fact that a handgun is "above" Paddock's head doesn't mean he shot himself with it. In fact, in what way is it feasible that Paddock threw a pistol over his shoulder after he was already dead?

There is no 'trail of blood-spots' leading to the pistol. if you look at the image again, you'll see there are blood spots scattered across the carpet.



I see a trail of blood spots that leads from the blood on his chest, up to his shoulder, across the carpet leading to the gun:




And I do not see how that could have happened if he shot himself in the mouth.

He would have to move his hand from his chest to above his head, then back down to his side. Sounds completely implausible given I don't see a bunch of blood spatter showing he was still breathing (coughing out blood) on his chin, face, around his head, etc...



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
there is blood on the revolver. I'd say that's a pretty good indication it was on his person when he died.


(a) I'm not sure I can see blood on the revolver and (b) even if there is, it would have got there during the infliction of the exit wound at the back of Paddock's head.

The blood spots in that area didn't come from something that was moving around, they came from the head-wound. So if a revolver was in that position already, it would have been spattered along with everything else in the vicinity.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Violater1
I just thought of this. How did his leg get UNDER the rifle?



Looks staged a all get out.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


I see a trail of blood spots that leads from the blood on his chest, up to his shoulder, across the carpet leading to the gun:


If there's blood on Paddock's chest, it must have got there after he died or at the moment of death. The only way it could be connected to the supposed trail of blood-spots is if Paddock shot himself with his left hand, then threw the gun over his right shoulder while he was lying down - i.e., dead or in his last moments.

More to the point, you seem to be of the opinion that the spots on Paddock's chest and on the carpet indicate a single sweep from a blood-dripping object. But anyone can see from themselves the two sets of spots don't even vaguely line up.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
More to the point, you seem to be of the opinion that the spots on Paddock's chest and on the carpet indicate a single sweep from a blood-dripping object. But anyone can see from themselves the two sets of spots don't even vaguely line up.



That's my first thought, but I am not married to it. I can accept the idea it is not a single trail of blood drops. Seems plausible enough to me that it may not be.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think you're spot on. Looks like he was shot in the chest, blood in center of chest and what appears to be an entry location, also a collapsed or crushed area of his right chest. Chest wound could fill the lungs with blood, and could explain the blood expelled from the mouth/nose.

Whether self-inflicted or not, or when etc are unknown.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: sg1642
there is blood on the revolver. I'd say that's a pretty good indication it was on his person when he died.


(a) I'm not sure I can see blood on the revolver and (b) even if there is, it would have got there during the infliction of the exit wound at the back of Paddock's head.

The blood spots in that area didn't come from something that was moving around, they came from the head-wound. So if a revolver was in that position already, it would have been spattered along with everything else in the vicinity.



I disagree, however, with pretty much all of this. It's very obvious there is blood on the revolver.

There appears to be a sizable smudge on the cylinder, and also a couple of drops (near the trigger and by the hammer). They look to have been dropped vertically from above, and not caused by spatter coming from an angle with any velocity.

I don't see how an exit wound on the back of his head could do that given the exit wound is against the carpet and the revolver was allegedly in his mouth firing a shot, not behind his head.

Or that's what the first responders insinuated on 60 Minutes...that the revolver was on the floor 'consistent with him shooting himself.'


edit on 10/15/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
The fact that a handgun is "above" Paddock's head doesn't mean he shot himself with it. In fact, in what way is it feasible that Paddock threw a pistol over his shoulder after he was already dead?

There is no 'trail of blood-spots' leading to the pistol. if you look at the image again, you'll see there are blood spots scattered across the carpet.



Ah, I see now. You have not heard the info from the first officers to breach the room, on 60 Minutes, about the revolver:


Matthew Donaldson: My initial scan, coming in the room with my rifle is just seein' I'm seeing one male down, bleeding from the face. He was not a threat. Kept going, kept going, kept going.

Bill Whitaker: Said one male down. That was the shooter?

Matthew Donaldson: Yes.

Bill Whitaker: Stephen Paddock?

Bill Whitaker: What were his wounds?

Dave Newton: I didn't see any apparent wounds to his head. But I did see a lotta blood that had come outta his mouth.

Joshua Bitsko: There was -- a bloody revolver I think -- nearby. Nearby him that was on the ground consistent with him shootin' himself.


Link


They are the ones insinuating he shot himself with the revolver....and that it had blood on it.



edit on 10/15/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
go back a little on this page there is a pic of the GUN her shot himself with...the full pic with the body can't be posted but you see a big blood stain and blood trail and then at the end of the trail is the gun




originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: audubon

Except he didn't kill himself with the rifle


Did he not? Got a source for that? I've seen nothing that specifies the suicide weapon. If you're right then I'm clearly wrong.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Yes. Above his head on the carpet with a blood trail leading from it to his shoulder and then to a large blood stain on his chest.


I've seen the pic of the revolver above his head and it raises more a question for me. Why is it so far above his head? If he did shoot himself, he would surely have dropped the gun, it not being made of rubber, it wouldn't exactly bounce and would have fallen around his feet, instead it's a couple of feet above his head. Now, let's say he was standing when it happened, it would drop to his feet, he would have hit the ground and the gun would have likely ended up about his knees. Even if he was sitting when he did it, the gun would have not fallen as far and thus bounced even less. Another thing I noticed was that there was not a single rifle that looked to have a bump stock that we heard so much aboit at the start of all this.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: research100
go back a little on this page there is a pic of the GUN her shot himself with...the full pic with the body can't be posted but you see a big blood stain and blood trail and then at the end of the trail is the gun


Scroll up and you will see that I have already addressed this. The location of that gun proves nothing.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
With so many guns around, how do we know it was that particular gun he shot himself with? And why have guns everywhere, strange them being in the bath etc, would of made more sense all being by the window ready for use?

Also, what about all the cameras that were supposed to be all around the room, any news on that?



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Ah, I see now. You have not heard the info from the first officers to breach the room, on 60 Minutes, about the revolver:


Ah so that's where this has started from. Not particularly earth-shaking news. He could have made the same mistake I'm describing. Blood on a nearby revolver and naturally anyone could jump to that conclusion. In terms of his credibility, well he's a police officer but he's not a pathologist. Only the post-mortem will determine which weapon was used.

I still think the gun was already on the floor and the back-spatter from Paddock's exit wound got on it.

I mean, if it was heavily-bloodied enough to splash on the carpet, why isn't it lying in its own little pool of blood?

And more pertinently, if he shot himself in the mouth, how did the gun get so bloody but not his shirt?



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

The only way it could be connected to the supposed trail of blood-spots is if Paddock shot himself with his left hand, then threw the gun over his right shoulder while he was lying down - i.e., dead or in his last moments.



Except, if you look at where the blood has poured out the exit wound on his head, it's on his left hand side, as if he used his right hand to pull the trigger...



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

I think that's stretching it a bit, tbh.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

When did these photos first appear? Looking closely at the window, it looks like it's daylight outside. Plenty of time to stage a crime scene.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

When did these photos first appear? Looking closely at the window, it looks like it's daylight outside. Plenty of time to stage a crime scene.



Which photo in this thread looks like daylight to you?



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Violater1
I just thought of this. How did his leg get UNDER the rifle?



Looks staged a all get out.
Looks like this is a case for sheriff Andy and Barney. The lack of truthful information is astonishing in this case i won't believe Paddock did it till i see the film he supposedly took,which we will never see. Love the govt "minder" who stands next to the sheriff as he speaks - Can a pistol shot be heard from inside the room 350 meters away? Heard Paddock made millions gambling-yea you know that's not correct.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Violater1

So it seam's to me you may be suggesting the possibility that he was a patsy framed for the massacre, his body placed to look like he had done the deed and the real shooter'(s), probably a professional'(s) by the number of people killed and injured has/have gone back to ground or reported back to his boss with the job done.

As conspiracy theory's go a good one.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join