Vegas: Multiple Survivors/Eyewitness Tell of Multiple Shooters at Multiple Casinos

a reply to: Boadicea


Sorry not buying it. Eyewitnesses are usually very unreliable. Ask any investigator and they will tell you one of the worst things they can hear is "there are eyewitnesses" Also you referenced a guy saying bullets were going horizontal and not "raining down", How would he know what direction the bullets are going. It is easy in a shooting scenario especially in a city setting with echo, to think shots are coming from several locations when all you are really hearing is echo.

If someone were in doubt about multiple shooters
i would hope they could suspend their belief system,
then look at the evidence.

Suspend the belief that those in official
positions would surely sound an alarm if
an actual conspiracy had occurred.

Then look at the mountains of video and hear those
eyewitnesses tell their stories one more time .

& Most important watch some science based
audio analysis of the sounds of the shootings.
The mainstream isn't doing it.So you have to YT it.
Maybe you won't trust the presenters for a variety of reasons
but their math is sound.

a reply to: norhoc

Some of those other casinos are a mile and a half away from the concert grounds.



And there's still no proof at all that the shots came from the 32nd floor at Mandalay Bay.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Boadicea


Sorry not buying it. Eyewitnesses are usually very unreliable. Ask any investigator and they will tell you one of the worst things they can hear is "there are eyewitnesses"

This is completely bogus.

I happen to be an investigator. Eye witness testimony is very important for any investigation, as it is a first hand source of information. Anybody else’s version of events reciting the first hand statement is mere hearsay, and gets more twisted the more it is passed down the line. How many mouths have the truth passed through by the time the authorities make an official press release? They’re not going to say “here are the facts so you can make up your own conclusions because we simply don’t know what happened ourselves”; they will provide a narrative and sell it to the public, because that is what they are expected to do.

Also, eye witness testimony is most prevalent within the first 24 hours or so while details are still fresh in short term memory. After the eye witness gets a chance to calm down and rationalize what they saw according to other accounts, then the testimony becomes less accurate.

Also, keep in mind that eye witness testimony is so highly regarded in the American justice system that it is a requisite for condemning a suspect to the death penalty in the court of law.

a reply to: norhoc

Sorry not buying it. Eyewitnesses are usually very unreliable.

This is completely true, but in the instances discussed in the OP, the details of what the witnesses saw are secondary to the fact that the witnesses saw it in the first place.

Multiple eyewitnesses agreeing on the basic fact that a particular event occurred is not absolutely conclusive, but it is clearly very significant. Especially when, as in the OP, some of those witnesses are not just average members of the public in a stressful situation, but are security professionals.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Boadicea


Sorry not buying it. Eyewitnesses are usually very unreliable.

Okay. I would say that the authorities are even less reliable... especially when they have something to hide. And, of course, if the witnesses cannot be trusted, then common sense tells us that there would not be corresponding police audio traffic... But if you want to place your trust in the authorities who can't seem to get their story straight, okay.

Ask any investigator and they will tell you one of the worst things they can hear is "there are eyewitnesses"

Also you referenced a guy saying bullets were going horizontal and not "raining down", How would he know what direction the bullets are going.

Well, one of those person saying the bullets were going horizontal explained exactly how they knew... those bullets didn't hit the ground, they kept going straight. Obviously, of necessity, bullets "raining down" would hit the ground.

It is easy in a shooting scenario especially in a city setting with echo, to think shots are coming from several locations when all you are really hearing is echo.

So we've been told... endlessly... by the same people who keep changing their story.

Hmmmmm....

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse


Firstly I don't believe you were an investigator based on you believing eyewitnesses are invaluable I stand by my assertion eyewitnesses are unreliable.




www.livescience.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... eaf

expertpages.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...
nobaproject.com...

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse


Firstly I don't believe you were an investigator based on you believing eyewitnesses are invaluable I stand by my assertion eyewitnesses are unreliable.




www.livescience.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... eaf

expertpages.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...
nobaproject.com...

Well I don’t care what you believe because you are objectively wrong in terms of standards set in law enforcement and the justice system.

Eye witnesses often make mistakes and can be unreliable. HOWEVER, the key is to collaborate eye witness statements with other eye witness statements and other hard evidence to validate what was witnessed. This is how the truth is derived.

I don’t know exactly how else you think this process is conducted. Perhaps you believe that the authorities should present a narrative combined with whatever hearsay fits the narrative? Because that is contrary to any legal procedure that I know of (though I would not say that it isn’t done this way often).

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse




"Eye witnesses often make mistakes and can be unreliable. HOWEVER, the key is to collaborate eye witness statements "

Do you mean Corroborate? not collaborate there "professional investigator" ? You don't even know the right terminology.

a reply to: norhoc

People can mis-speak... and autocorrect can mis-predict what is being typed/spoken. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to assume the worst, much less be so insulting. Especially when no one has treated you with such disrespect -- the exact opposite in fact.

Good people can disagree without being rude, insulting or otherwise unpleasant.

And for the record, at one time I made a very good living transcribing recorded statements for insurance companies and law enforcement agencies. They valued eyewitness testimonies or I wouldn't have had a job.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse




"Eye witnesses often make mistakes and can be unreliable. HOWEVER, the key is to collaborate eye witness statements "

Do you mean Corroborate? not collaborate there "professional investigator" ? You don't even know the right terminology.

I made no mistake in my terminology. The statements collaborate each other, not the witnesses as you insinuate.

The definition of “collaborate” meaning “to work together”. Where do you think the term “corroborate” comes from?

And I never once claimed to be a “professional investigator”. However, I do conduct investigations for a living. I also have extensive training on the subject. And it’s funny because our training references American law quite often, especially in terms of the hierarchy of accurate information.

Eye witness testimony is crucial because, even if you have a video of an incident, the video itself does not provide context. Hard evidence is nothing without context. And it is quite elementary to understand that most criminal legal cases that occur are, in fact, invoked from eye witness testimony; often times from the victim. And it is eye witness testimony that leads to conviction, either directly or indirectly involved with the crime.

By your logic, pretty much your entire legal system operates without credibility, because most of it is based on eye witness testimony.

EDIT: the ultimate irony here is that the authority’s narrative of this Vegas incident is based on eye witness testimony. The problem is that much of the eye witness testimony has been omitted from the narrative. This is why the narrative keeps changing, because more credible eye witness testimony is becoming more obvious. Case in point: the interaction between the security guard and the shooter. Look how fast that changed with the testimony from the maintenance guy.

a A lot of that (not all, but alot) actually seems to show that most of those places didn't have shooters, but were used as diversions. Like the calls about the Tropicana. They keep reporting that they're getting calls about an active shooter there, shots fired there, WHILE there is a strike team there telling them that no shots have been fired, and concluding that it's a diversion.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Smiling? With automatic weapons going off within 100 yards of where you're standing? Death wish party, right?

Many people react differently to high levels of anxiety..from bursting out crying, to laughing, etc.

True, but standing erect and not flinching as gunfire is going off around you supposedly not knowing who the targets are doesn't seem like a reaction to anything.....and that is what's abnormal. Nearly all of us duck instinctively, here we have a group that doesn't. With one standing tall wearing a 9/11 never forget commemorative T shirt.

Thanks so much for this, Bo! I hope this gains some traction outside of ATS somehow. If there really were other shooters, we absolutely should be told. If people are ok with our civil servants and officials lying to us about something like this, then I don't know what. We should all be applying pressure to get some answers. Who though?

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a A lot of that (not all, but alot) actually seems to show that most of those places didn't have shooters, but were used as diversions. Like the calls about the Tropicana. They keep reporting that they're getting calls about an active shooter there, shots fired there, WHILE there is a strike team there telling them that no shots have been fired, and concluding that it's a diversion.

Um... maybe... kinda sorta. I think it's probably a combination of the two -- some false alarms as a diversionary tactic to spread the police as thin as possible, and some genuine shooters.

Especially given the police reports of patrol cars being stolen ostensibly to take the injured to the hospital. While that may be true for some, or even most, it may not be true for all. Someone in a stolen patrol car could also be making false reports to the dispatcher. There are two many variables to be certain... and too many gross discrepancies to be sure of anything.

Well, except of course that the authorities keep changing their stories, but the eyewitness/survivor accounts remain constant.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Thanks so much for this, Bo! I hope this gains some traction outside of ATS somehow. If there really were other shooters, we absolutely should be told. If people are ok with our civil servants and officials lying to us about something like this, then I don't know what. We should all be applying pressure to get some answers. Who though?

You're welcome -- and I'm so glad to see you here!

For what it's worth, a little while ago I searched for any new articles with "Vegas + multiple shooters" to include here (since all my links were a few days old at least!) and this thread popped up about halfway down the first page! So there's a good chance it will get some outside attention. That's so weird to me though! I never thought about that happening...

But if it helps bring attention to these survivor/eyewitness accounts then AWESOME POSSUM!

Bodicea said:

I know we'll never know the whole truth, but I do believe the authorities and media have so totally overplayed their hand -- not to mention totally and completely screwing up their public narrative -- that this may mark a watershed moment for their lies and deceit. I hope and pray so!


AMEN TO THAT!

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse


Firstly I don't believe you were an investigator based on you believing eyewitnesses are invaluable I stand by my assertion eyewitnesses are unreliable.

That's not an argument.

100% of eye witnesses are not unreliable. All it takes is one of them to be correct to throw the whole official story off.

And your proposal that every last one of these eye witnesses were just unreliable is a garbage proposition.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Boadicea


Sorry not buying it. Eyewitnesses are usually very unreliable. Ask any investigator and they will tell you one of the worst things they can hear is "there are eyewitnesses" Also you referenced a guy saying bullets were going horizontal and not "raining down", How would he know what direction the bullets are going. It is easy in a shooting scenario especially in a city setting with echo, to think shots are coming from several locations when all you are really hearing is echo.

So when the policeman said he had casualties at Giles and Alibaba, was he being an unreliable eyewitness?